Zedong Wang v. Sessions

16-4089 Wang v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A206 288 118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 28th day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZEDONG WANG, AKA CHENYANG WANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4089 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Nataliya I. Gavlin, Gavlin & Associates, 24 P.C., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jonathan A. Robbins, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Tracey N. 29 McDonald, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 5 DENIED. 6 Petitioner Zedong Wang, a native and citizen of the 7 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 9, 2016 8 decision of the BIA affirming a February 17, 2016 decision of 9 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of 10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 11 (“CAT”). In re Zedong Wang, No. A206 288 118 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 12 2016), aff’g No. A206 288 118 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 17, 2016). 13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 14 and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 17 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 20 196 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not err in finding that Wang 21 failed to satisfy his burden of proof as to his claim that the 22 Chinese police had discovered that he was proselytizing to his 23 grandparents in China through the internet and therefore that 2 1 he had an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution 2 should he be removed to China. 3 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 4 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of 5 future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To demonstrate 6 a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either a reasonable 7 possibility that he would be singled out for persecution or that 8 the country of removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting 9 individuals similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R. 10 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). Furthermore, “an alien must make some 11 showing that authorities in his country of nationality are 12 either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his 13 activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d 14 Cir. 2008). “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient 15 to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but 16 only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the 17 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers 18 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant 19 is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Chuilu 20 Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97. 21 In this case, it was reasonable for the agency to require 22 corroboration of Wang’s testimony. Although Wang alleged that 3 1 Chinese police detained and beat his grandparents when they 2 discovered his proselytizing to them, Wang’s testimony was 3 inconsistent with evidence he submitted to prove that a friend 4 paid a fine to secure his grandparents’ release. See 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that 6 the applicant should provide evidence . . . , such evidence must 7 be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and 8 cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”); see also Chuilu Liu, 9 575 F.3d at 196-97. 10 The agency did not err in concluding that Wang failed to 11 provide reasonably available evidence to corroborate his 12 grandparents’ detention or his proselytizing over the internet. 13 Wang’s father lives in New York and purportedly reimbursed the 14 family friend who paid to secure Wang’s grandparents’ release, 15 but Wang did not proffer either his father’s testimony or an 16 affidavit from his father. See id. at 198 (“[T]he alien bears 17 the ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without 18 prompting from the IJ.”). Furthermore, although Wang testified 19 that he had a registered account with the video chat service 20 that he used to proselytize his grandparents and their 21 neighbors, he did not submit evidence of that account. See id. 22 at 198-99. 4 1 Other than the fine receipt, as to which the proof of 2 mailing undermined Wang’s credibility because it post-dated the 3 receipt’s submission into evidence, Wang’s only evidence to 4 corroborate his assertion that Chinese police had become aware 5 of his religious practice were letters from his grandfather and 6 the family friend who purportedly secured his grandparents’ 7 release. See Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 143 (requiring 8 applicant to show authorities’ awareness of activities). The 9 agency did not err in declining to credit these unsworn letters 10 because they were prepared for Wang’s removal proceedings and 11 written by individuals who were not available for 12 cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d 13 Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency decision to afford little weight 14 to petitioner’s husband’s letter because the letter was unsworn 15 and from an interested witness); see also Matter of H-L-H- & 16 Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010) (finding letters 17 from friends and family insufficient to support alien’s claims 18 because authors were interested witnesses not subject to 19 cross-examination), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang 20 v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d Cir. 2012). 21 Furthermore, the IJ did not err in determining that the 22 country conditions evidence failed to establish a pattern or 5 1 practice of persecution of similarly situated individuals such 2 that Wang’s fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. The 3 country conditions evidence provided reflects that tens of 4 millions of individuals practice Christianity in unregistered 5 churches in China, and that in some areas unsanctioned religious 6 practices are tolerated without interference. Therefore, 7 despite evidence of the destruction of churches and the arrests 8 of religious leaders and practitioners in certain regions, Wang 9 failed to demonstrate “systemic or pervasive” persecution of 10 similarly situated Christians sufficient to demonstrate a 11 pattern or practice of persecution in China. In re A-M-, 23 I. 12 & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005); see also 8 C.F.R. 13 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & 14 n.1 (2d Cir. 2009). 15 Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Wang 16 failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating a well-founded 17 fear of future persecution on account of his religious practice. 18 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-98; 19 see also Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142-43. That finding is 20 dispositive of Wang’s petition for asylum, withholding of 21 removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief were 22 based on Wang’s claim that he fears future persecution based 6 1 on his religion. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d 2 Cir. 2006). 3 We further conclude that the BIA did not err in declining 4 to consider the additional evidence Wang submitted to the agency 5 for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. 6 § 1003.1(d)(ii)(3)(iv); Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N. Dec. 7 57, 74 (B.I.A. 1984) (recognizing that, as appellate body, BIA 8 may decline to review evidence proffered for first time on 9 appeal). 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 13 and the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 15 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 17 34.1(b). 18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7