19-3581
Lin v. Rosen
BIA
Douchy, IJ
A208 597 828
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 29th day of December, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 RENNA RAGGI,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LIQUN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 19-3581
17 NAC
18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.*
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey E. Baron, Baron &
24 Shelkin, P.C., New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
27 Assistant Attorney General;
28 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
29 Director; Julia J. Tyler, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set
forth above.
1 Department of Justice, Washington,
2 DC.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Liqun Lin, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 22,
10 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 5, 2018 decision
11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
13 (“CAT”). In re Liqun Lin, No. A208 597 828 (B.I.A. Oct. 22,
14 2019), aff’g No. A208 597 828 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 5,
15 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history.
17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
18 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
19 Homeland Sec.,
, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 20 applicable standards of review are well established. See 21 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder,
741 F.3d 324
, 332
22 (2d Cir. 2013). The agency did not err in concluding that
23 Lin failed to satisfy her burden of proving a well-founded
24 fear of future persecution on account of her practice of
25 Christianity in an unregistered church in China and her escape
2
1 from a raid on that church in 2015.
2 As an initial matter, Lin did not exhaust before the
3 agency her claim that she suffered past persecution and
4 therefore we do not consider it. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t
5 of Justice,
, 118–22 (2d Cir. 2007). 6 Nonetheless, we note that the threat of detention without 7 more does not constitute past persecution. See Guan Shan 8 Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
, 70 (2d Cir. 2002). 9 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish asylum 10 eligibility by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future 11 persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Ramsameachire v. 12 Ashcroft,
, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To do so, an 13 applicant must show either a reasonable possibility that she 14 will be singled out for persecution or that the country of 15 removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly 16 situated individuals. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). 17 The agency did not err in finding Lin’s fear of being 18 singled out for future persecution speculative because, at 19 the time of her 2018 hearing, police had not expressed 20 interest in her since 2015. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i), 21 (iii); see also Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS,
,
22 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the
23 record . . . , [an applicant’s] fear is speculative at
3
1 best.”). The agency also did not err in determining that Lin
2 failed to demonstrate “systemic or pervasive” persecution of
3 similarly situated Christians sufficient to demonstrate a
4 pattern or practice of persecution because the evidence
5 states that tens of millions of Christians practice in
6 unregistered churches in China and that restrictions vary by
7 region. In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005); see
8 also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
9 Accordingly, the agency reasonably concluded that Lin
10 failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See
11 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). That finding was dispositive of
12 Lin’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
13 CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder,
, 119–20 (2d
14 Cir. 2010) (an applicant who fails to show sufficient risk of
15 harm for asylum “necessarily fails” to meet the higher burdens
16 for withholding of removal and CAT relief).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
19 stays VACATED.
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
22 Clerk of Court
23
4