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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 1 st**  **day of February, two thousand nineteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YUMEI SHI,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-912** 16 **NAC** 17 **MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Yee Ling Poon; Deborah 23 Niedermeyer, Of Counsel, On the 24 Brief, Law Office of Yee Ling 25 Poon, LLC, New York, NY. 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 29 Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 302 07102018-7 Director; Wendy Benner-León, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Yumei Shi, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 29, 12 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the October 16, 2014, 13 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yumei Shi, No. A205 826 082 16 (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A205 826 082 (Immig. Ct. 17 N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 20 decision as modified by the BIA’s decision, i.e., minus the 21 CAT claim the BIA found waived. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 22 Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 23 applicable standards of review are well established. See 24 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 253 07102018-7 Shi applied for asylum and withholding of removal, 1 asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her 2 three children in China and one child in the United States in 3 violation of China’s population control program. For largely 4 the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , we 5 find no error in the agency’s determination that Shi failed 6 to satisfy her burden for asylum and withholding of removal. 7 See id. at 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 8 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). As with the evidence in Jian Hui 9 Shao , the evidence in Shi’s c ase, including her testimony and 10 supporting letters, demonstrates that family planning 11 officials in Fujian Province use fines and economic 12 incentives to pressure couples to comply with the birth 13 control measures, abortions, and sterilizations required by 14 the policy. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169. The 15 agency also reasonably found Shi’s claimed fear of forced 16 sterilization diminished by the fact that sh e and her husband 17 remained unharmed in China for years after violating the 18 family planning policy. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 19 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding claimed fear of future 20 persecution weakened when similarly situat ed family members 21 remain unharmed in petitioner’s native country). 224 07102018-7 Because the agency did not err in finding that Shi failed 1 to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, we need not 2 reach the agency’s alternative determination that, even if 3 her fear of persecution in Fujian Province was well-founded, 4 she could safely relocate to Shanghai to avoid harm. See 5 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 6 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies 7 are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 8 which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10

DENIED. 11

FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 13 Clerk of Court 14