18

- 1815 Zheng v. Barr BIA Poczter , IJ A 208 019 392 

### 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 th e 14**  **th da**  **y of July**  **, two thousand twenty**  **.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 8 **STEVEN J. MENASHI,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **MENGQIAN ZHENG ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 18** 

**- 1815**  16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  19 **Respondent .**  20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  James A. Lombardi , New York , NY

. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant Attorney 25 General ; Song E. Park , Senior 26 Litigation Counsel ; Matt A. Crapo , 27 Trial Attorney, Office of 282 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D C. 3

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 6

is DENIED

. 7

Petitioner Mengqian Zheng , a native and citizen of the 8

People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a May 29, 2018 , 9

decision of the BIA affirming a June 26, 2017 , decision of an 10
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zheng’s application for 11
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 12
Convention Against Torture (“CAT” ). In re Mengqian Zheng , 13

No. A 208 019 392 (B.I.A. May 29, 2018 ), aff’g No. A 208 019 14

392 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 26, 2017 ). We assume the 15
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 16
history. 17

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18
the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 19
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005)

. 20

B ecause the BIA assumed credibility, we assume credibility as 21

to Zheng ’s subjec tive fear of future harm. See Yan Chen v. 22

Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271

- 72 (2d Cir. 2005) . T he 233 applicable standards of review are well established. See 1

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 2

510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 3

Zheng began practicing Christian ity while in the United 4
States and alleged a fear of persecution in China because she 5
would continue to practice Christianity if removed. Absent 6
past persecution, an alien may establish eligibility for 7
asylum by demonstrating a well

- fo unded fear of future 8
persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Ramsameachire v. 9

Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To demonstrate 10

a well

- founded fear, an applicant must show either a 11
reasonable possibility that she would be singled out for 12
persecution or that the country of removal has a pattern or 13
practice of persecuting similarly situated individuals. 8 14

C.F.R. § 12 08.13(b)(2)(iii); see In re A

- M

- , 23 I. & N. Dec. 15

737, 741 (BIA 2005) ( defining pattern or practice of 16
persecution as “systemic or pervasive” persecutio n ) ; Santoso 17

v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding 18
denial of pattern or practice c laim where under this “systemic 19
or pervasive” standard ). “[I]n order to establish 20
eligibility for relief based exclusively on activities 214 undertaken after [her] arrival in the United States, an alien 1
must make some showing that authorities in [her] country of 2
nationality are (1) aware of [her] activities or (2) likely 3

to become aware of [her] activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. 4

Mukasey , 528 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2008). 5

Zheng does not allege that the Chinese government is 6
aware of her religious practice, and she does not challenge 7
the agency’s ruling that she had not shown a reasonable 8
possibility that she would be singled out for persecution

. 9

Instead, Zheng argues that there is a reasonable possibility 10
that the Chinese government will become aware of her religious 11
practice because she intends to attend an underground church, 12
and that there is a reasonable possibility that she will be 13

persecuted as a result because the governm ent has a pattern 14
or practice of persecuting similarly situated Christians

. 15

However, the agency reasonably concluded that Zheng failed to 16
show a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians who 17
attend unregistered churches in China. 18

The State Departm ent’s 2015 International Religious 19
Freedom Report states that there are approximately 45 million 20
Christians practicing in unregistered churches in China and 215 that authorities in some areas of the country allow 1
unregistered churches to hold services “provide d they 2
remained small in scale,” although authorities in other areas 3

target and close such churches. See China 2015 Int’l 4
Religious Freedom Rep. at 3, 14 , available at 20 09

- 5
2017.state.gov/documents/organization/256309.pdf

. It 6
further reports that China’s State Administration for 7
Religious Affairs policy provides that “family and friends 8
have the right to meet at home for worship, including prayer 9
and Bible study, without registering with the government.” 10

Id. at 6. The other country conditions evidence Zheng 11

submitted reflect abuses against people who are not similarly 12

situated to Zheng

— who testified that she would attend 13
services at an unregistered church, but not that she would 14
take a leadership role, proselytize, or engage in other 15

activism

— or concern areas of China other than Zheng’s native 16
Fujian province. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 17

165

– 66, 174 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that the BIA does not err 18
in requiring localized evidence of persecution when the 19

record reflected wide variances in how policies are 20
understood and enforced throughout China). Similarly, 216 although Zheng alleged that she had heard of people being 1
persecuted for their religious beliefs, she did not provide 2

details of specific instances of persecution of individuals 3
for attending churches in in her home province. Cf. id. at 4
160 (holding that “unattributed reports” of forced 5
sterilizations absent “specificity as to number or 6
circumstance” did not “demonstrate a reasonable possib ility 7
. . . [of] future persecution”). 8

Given the large number of Christians practicing in 9
unregistered churches in China, the nationwide variation and 10
the dearth of documented persecution of individual members of 11
unregistered churches in Zheng’s home prov ince, the agency 12

reasonably concluded that Zheng failed to establish 13

a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated 14

individuals. See id. at 165

– 66, 174; see also Santoso , 580 15

F.3d at 112 & n.1 (denying petition where agency considered 16
background materials and rejected pattern or practice claim 17

because violence was localized )

. Accordingly, because Zheng 18

failed to demonstrate the well

- founded fear of persecution 19

needed for asylum, the agency did not err in finding that she 20
failed to meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 217 See Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2010). 1
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2

DENIED

. All pending motions and applicatio ns are DENIED and 3

stays VACATED. 4

FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 6 Clerk of Court 7 8