06152016-10 

16-912 

Shi v. Whitaker 

BIA 

Poczter, IJ 

A205 826 082 

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 

New York, on the 1st 4 day of February, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 DENNIS JACOBS, 

9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 YUMEI SHI, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 16-912 

17 NAC 

18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon; Deborah 

24 Niedermeyer, Of Counsel, On the 

25 Brief, Law Office of Yee Ling 

26 Poon, LLC, New York, NY. 

27 

28 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

29 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 

30 Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 
2

07102018-7 

1 Director; Wendy Benner-León, Trial 

2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

3 Litigation, United States 

4 Department of Justice, Washington, 

5 DC. 

6 

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

10 is DENIED. 

11 Petitioner Yumei Shi, a native and citizen of the 

12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 29, 

13 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the October 16, 2014, 

14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 

15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yumei Shi, No. A205 826 082 

17 (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A205 826 082 (Immig. Ct. 

18 N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

19 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

20 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 

21 decision as modified by the BIA’s decision, i.e., minus the 

22 CAT claim the BIA found waived. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 

23 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 

24 applicable standards of review are well established. See 

25 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 
3

07102018-7 

1 Shi applied for asylum and withholding of removal, 

2 asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her 

3 three children in China and one child in the United States in 

4 violation of China’s population control program. For largely 

5 the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, we 

6 find no error in the agency’s determination that Shi failed 

7 to satisfy her burden for asylum and withholding of removal. 

8 See id. at 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

9 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). As with the evidence in Jian Hui 

10 Shao, the evidence in Shi’s case, including her testimony and 

11 supporting letters, demonstrates that family planning 

12 officials in Fujian Province use fines and economic 

13 incentives to pressure couples to comply with the birth 

14 control measures, abortions, and sterilizations required by 

15 the policy. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169. The 

16 agency also reasonably found Shi’s claimed fear of forced 

17 sterilization diminished by the fact that she and her husband 

18 remained unharmed in China for years after violating the 

19 family planning policy. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 

20 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding claimed fear of future 

21 persecution weakened when similarly situated family members 

22 remain unharmed in petitioner’s native country). 
4

07102018-7 

1 Because the agency did not err in finding that Shi failed 

2 to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, we need not 

3 reach the agency’s alternative determination that, even if 

4 her fear of persecution in Fujian Province was well-founded, 

5 she could safely relocate to Shanghai to avoid harm. See 

6 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 

7 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies 

8 are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 

9 which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

11 DENIED. 

12 FOR THE COURT: 

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 

14 Clerk of Court