13-3288 Zhang v. Holder BIA Poctzer, IJ A200 838 026 

### 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 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 United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 4 th** **day of February, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **MING ZHANG,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 13-3288** 17 **NAC** 18 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent **.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, New** 25 **York.** 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 28 **General; Francis Fraser, Senior** 29**Litigation Counsel; Kate D. Balaban,** 1 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 2 **Immigration Litigation, United** 3 **States Department of Justice,** 4 **Washington D.C.** 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 Ming Zhang, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 14, 12 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the November 28, 2011, 13 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying her 14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming 16 Zhang, No. A200 838 026 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2013), aff’gNo. 17 A200 838 026 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 28, 2011). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have 21 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 22 sake of completeness.” See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 23 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The applicable standards 24 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 25

2§ 1252(b)(4)(B);Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 1 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 Zhang does not challenge the agency’s determination 3 that she failed to demonstrate past persecution. 4 Accordingly, we address only her argument that she has a 5 well-founded fear of future persecution as a practicing 6 Catholic. To establish asylum eligibility based on future 7 persecution, an applicant must show that she subjectively 8 fears persecution and that this fear is objectively 9 reasonable. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 10 (2d Cir. 2004). This requires an alien to show a reasonable 11 possibility that authorities in her country are either aware 12 of her activities or are likely to become aware of them. 13 Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) 14 (per curiam). An alien may make this showing either by 15 offering evidence that “‘he or she would be singled out 16 individually for persecution’” or by “prov[ing] the 17 existence of ‘a pattern or practice in his or her country of 18 nationality . . . of persecution of a group of persons 19 similarly situated to the applicant.’” Kyaw Zwar Tun v. U.S. 20

INS , 445 F.3d 554, 564 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 8 C.F.R. 21 § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)). 22

3The agency reasonably concluded that Zhang did not show 1 that she would be singled out individually for persecution. 2 Zhang presented no evidence that the Chinese government is 3 aware of or will become aware of her Catholicism. Her 4 application and testimony reflect that she was never 5 discovered attending church, and she did not allege that the 6 Chinese government was seeking her out. Instead she argues 7 that, just as the Chinese government raided the underground 8 church she previously attended, it will likely raid any 9 future church she attends, thereby discovering her 10 Catholicism. This argument is, in essence, a pattern or 11 practice claim. As discussed below, the agency reasonably 12 concluded that the evidence did not show a pattern or 13 practice of persecution. 14 To establish a pattern or practice of persecution 15 against a particular group, a petitioner must demonstrate 16 that the harm to that group is “so systemic or pervasive as 17 to amount to a pattern or practice of persecution.” In re 18

A-M- , 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005); see Mufied v. 19 Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir. 2007). Zhang argues that 20 the evidence of official harassment of underground Catholics 21 is sufficient to find a pattern or practice because we have 22

4rejected the “systemic or pervasive” standard. She is 1 incorrect. “Where the BIA explicitly discusse[s] the pattern 2 or practice claim and the record includes substantial 3 documentary evidence regarding the conditions in 4 petitioner’s homeland, we are able to reach the conclusion 5 that the agency’s decision was not erroneous.” See Santoso 6 v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 n.1 (2d Cir. 2009). 7 As the agency found, the 2010 State Department Report 8 reveals only sporadic, localized harassment of underground 9 Christian groups, with government repression focusing on 10 large congregations in Shanghai and Beijing. The report 11 reflects that in some areas, local authorities approved of 12 underground church activities in spite of the official state 13 ban and that religious freedom may actually be increasing. 14 Based on this evidence of localized harassment, the IJ 15 reasonably required locality-specific evidence of 16 persecution in Fujian, Zhang’s home province. Jian Hui Shao 17 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 142, 149, 169-72 (2d Cir. 2008) 18 (finding no error in the BIA's evidentiary framework 19 requiring an applicant to demonstrate that similarly 20 situated individuals face persecution in his or her local 21 area when enforcement varies by region). Zhang presented no 22

5evidence that the Chinese government represses Catholics in 1 Fujian other than two hand-labeled photographs of what 2 purport to be demolished churches. The agency reasonably 3 concluded that this was insufficient evidence of a pattern 4 or practice of persecution in Zhang’s locality. Id. 5 Zhang’s additional evidence does not compel us to 6 conclude otherwise. The 2009 International Religious 7 Freedom Report, issued two years before her hearing, 8 indicates repression of underground Catholics in several 9 provinces, but fails to mention any issues in Fujian. The 10 remainder of Zhang’s evidence relates to incidents 11 surrounding the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. This evidence is 12 of limited relevance to Zhang’s claim that Catholics were 13 being persecuted in Fujian in 2011. Considering the record 14 as a whole, the agency reasonably found that Zhang failed to 15 show that official repression of Catholics would lead to 16 discovery of her Catholicism. Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 17 143 (requiring showing of “reasonable possibility” of 18 persecution). 19 Because Zhang is unable to show the well-founded fear 20 needed to make out an asylum claim, she is necessarily 21 unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on 22

6claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul 1 v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang 2 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 7 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 11

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

7