Case ID: f-appx_380/html/0036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LINYING WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-3597-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 3, 2010.
    
      Scott E. Bratton, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Aviva L. Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel; Aric A. Anderson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, richard c. wesley and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Linying Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 30, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the November 6, 1998, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mirlande Tadal, which denied her application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Linying Wang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 30, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 6, 1998). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See Yam Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007).

We find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Wang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution through forced sterilization based on the birth of her four children. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 148-49 (2d Cir.2008) (affirming the BIA’s three-part test requiring an applicant claiming fear of persecution under China’s population control policy to demonstrate: (1) the existence of a family planning policy in her local province, municipality, or other locally defined area; (2) that she has violated this family planning policy; and (3) that the violation would be punished in the local area in a way that would give rise to an objective fear of future persecution). The State Department Country Profile for China, which Wang cites in support of her claim, specifically states that officials in Wang’s native Zhejiang province do not resort to force in response to violations of China’s population control policy, and further indicates that women in Zhejiang province are allowed to have “two, three or more unauthorized children.” See Matter of C-C-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 899, 901-02 (BIA 2006).

Moreover, to the extent Wang submitted to the BIA evidence regarding conditions in Fujian Province, we have previously considered that evidence, and have agreed with the BIA that it is insufficient to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of forced sterilization. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-71; see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006).

Moreover, we decline to consider Wang’s unexhausted challenge to the BIA’s finding that her fear of forcible sterilization was not objectively reasonable because she was able to relocate within China. Wang failed to exhaust this challenge because she did not raise it on appeal to the BIA, despite it being the sole basis for the IJ’s denial of her asylum application. See Foster v. I.N.S., 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004) (requiring petitioners to raise to the BIA the specific issues later raised in this Court); Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007); see also Theodoropoulos v. I.N.S., 358 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir.2004). Finally, because Wang fails to present any meaningful challenge to the agency’s denial of her application for withholding of removal, we deem any such argument waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).