09-3657-ag

Jiang v. Holder

BIA

Page, IJ

A097 133 233

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 1 day of June, two thousand ten. st

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 LAN YING JIANG,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 09-3657-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New

24 York.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

27 General, Civil Division; Blair T.

28 O’Connor, Assistant Director; Joseph

29 D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Office of
2

1 Immigration Litigation, United

2 States Department of Justice,

3 Washington, D.C.

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

8 is DENIED.

9 Lan Ying Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s

10 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 31, 2009, order of

11 the BIA, affirming the January 30, 2006, decision of

12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan Page, which denied her

13 application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re

14 Lan Ying Jiang, No. A097 133 233 (B.I.A. July 31, 2009),

15 aff’g No. A097 133 233 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2006). 

16 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

17 and procedural history in this case.

18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

19 aspects of the IJ’s decision which were not rejected by the

20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d

21 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review

22 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see

23 also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). 

24 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination

25 that Jiang failed to demonstrate that she suffered
3

1 persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C.

2 § 1101(a)(42); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). Although

3 Jiang testified that she did not know why her former coach

4 raped her, she claimed on appeal to the BIA that he did so

5 on account of her membership in the particular social group

6 of “women to whom a Chinese official owes a fiduciary duty

7 which the official violates.” However, assuming arguendo

8 that Jiang has identified a "particular social group" within

9 the meaning of the asylum statute, the BIA reasonably found

10 that Jiang failed to provide evidence suggesting that the

11 coach was motivated by her membership in that particular

12 social group. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a); Koudriachova v.

13 Gonzales, 490 F.3d 255, 261-62 (2d. Cir. 2007). Indeed,

14 Jiang testified that the rape occurred after she refused her

15 coach’s requests to trade sex for a place on the national

16 shooting team, suggesting a “result occasioned by other

17 factors more specific” to Jiang as opposed to her membership

18 in a broader group. Koudriachova, 490 F.3d at 261-62. 

19 Accordingly, a reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled

20 to conclude that Jiang’s membership in a particular social

21 group was at least one motivation for the harm she suffered. 

22 Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017, 1028 (2d Cir. 1994). 
4

1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

11