NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2689

___________

YONGQING SHAO,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A093-354-079)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 26, 2014

Before: FISHER, VANASKIE and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 27, 2014 )

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Yongqing Shao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed his appeal from an 

Immigration Judge‟s (“IJ”) final removal order. We will deny the petition for review.
2

Shao entered the United States on a visitor‟s visa in 2001 but stayed beyond the 

time authorized. In 2009, he applied for asylum and related relief, based on three 

grounds: (1) a claim based on China‟s enforcement of population policy; (2) a claim that 

the Chinese government took his land and he was punished when he protested; and (3) a 

claim that he will be persecuted in China because of his political activities in the United 

States. After a hearing, the IJ found that Shao‟s asylum application was untimely, and 

that he had not met the burden of proof for withholding of removal or protection under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

On appeal to the BIA, Shao argued only that the IJ erred in finding his politicalactivities asylum claim time-barred, and that she erred by denying the claim on the 

merits. As to those claims, the BIA assumed for purposes of decision that the asylum 

claim was timely, but it agreed with the IJ that Shao “did not demonstrate that the 

Chinese government is aware, or is likely to become aware, of his political activities in 

the United States.” BIA decision at 2.1 Shao filed a timely petition for review.

In his brief here, Shao argues only that the IJ‟s and BIA‟s decisions should be 

reversed because he satisfied his burden for a grant of asylum based on his claim that he 

will be persecuted for his activities with the United States Party for Freedom and 

Democracy in China (“PFDC”).2 To be eligible for asylum, Shao was required to show 

 

1

The BIA also agreed with the IJ that Shao had not shown past persecution, had not met 

the higher burden for withholding of removal, and had not shown that he was likely to be 

tortured.

2 Although Shao‟s brief sets forth the legal criteria for withholding of removal and relief 

under the CAT, he does not argue that he is eligible for such relief, nor does he argue that 
3

that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted if he were to return to China. The 

IJ‟s determination that the Chinese government is not likely to take action against Shao, 

affirmed here by the BIA, is a factual determination. Huang v. Att‟y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 

382 (3d Cir. 2010).3 We may reverse such a factual determination “only if any 

reasonable fact-finder would be „compelled to conclude otherwise.‟” Id. (quoting 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 

Shao testified that he joined the PFDC in July of 2008, that he had participated in 

demonstrations in front of the Chinese Consulate in New York, and that he believes he 

may have been videotaped. A.R. 106, 109. The PFDC chairman, Kexhue Zheng, also 

testified in support of Shao‟s applications. Shao testified, and Zheng confirmed, that 

although Shao is not a party leader, he is “more aggressive” than other members at 

demonstrations. A.R. 137, 156. Shao also wrote one article regarding his political views, 

which he believes appeared on the internet in May of 2009. A.R. 106, 111, 163. Both 

Shao and Zheng testified that Shao would definitely be arrested and sentenced if he 

returns to China, and both noted that some other party activists had been arrested in 

China. A.R. 109-110, 160.

 

he is eligible for asylum based on his family planning or eminent domain claims. Shao 

further makes no claim of past persecution. Those claims are thus waived. Chen v. 

Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).

3

In assessing an asylum claim, an IJ considers three questions: (1) “what may happen if 

the alien returns to his home country”; (2) whether “those events meet the legal definition 

of persecution”; and (3) whether “the possibility of those events occurring gives rise to a 

well-founded fear of persecution under the circumstances of the alien‟s case.” Id. at 383.
4

The IJ found that Shao‟s fear of future persecution in China was not “reasonable 

or well-founded.” A.R. 51. The IJ stated that there was no objective evidence that the 

Chinese government is aware that Shao published an article on the internet, noting that 

two years had passed, and no inquiries had been made at Shao‟s home. Id. The IJ also 

found no objective evidence that the Chinese government was aware of Shao‟s 

participation in demonstrations in the United States. The BIA found no clear error in the 

IJ‟s forecasting of future events, and Shao has not pointed to any objective evidence4in 

the record that would compel us to overturn that finding.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

 

4

Shao points to record testimony that he would “definitely be arrested” in China; 

however, this testimony appears to have been based only on personal opinion. Shao also 

notes his testimony regarding activists who have been arrested in China, but he does not 

explain the circumstances behind their arrests, nor whether his circumstances are similar.