19

- 4294 Zhang v. Garland BIA Hom , IJ A205 883 284 /285
**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 Thu**  **rgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 1**  **6 t**  **h d**  **a y of**  **A u**  **g u**  **s t**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**

**- two** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN**  **,** 7 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO ,**  8 **MYRNA PÉREZ ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YAN ZHANG ,**  **HUI ZHAO**  **,** 13 **Petitioner s**  **,** 14 15
**v. 19** 

**- 4294**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER S**  **:** Richard Tarzia , Esq ., Belle Mead , 23 N J

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General ; Mary 27 Jane Candaux , Assistant Director ; 28 Stephen Finn , Trial Attorney, 292 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, 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 s Yan Zhang and Hui Zhao , native s and citizen s 8

of the People’s Republic of China , seek review of a December 9

2 , 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 5 , 2018 decision 10
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) , which den ied their 11
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 12
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 13

re Yan Zhang , Hui Zhao , No s . A205 883 284 / 285 (B.I.A. Dec . 2 , 14

201 9 ), aff’g Nos. A205 883 284/ 285 (Immig r . Ct. N.Y. C. Mar. 15

5 , 201 8 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16
underlying facts and procedural history. 17

W e review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See 18

Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 2020). We 19

review factual findings for substantial evidence and 20
questions of law and the application of law to undisputed 21

facts de novo

. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 22

(2d Cir. 2009). “[T] he administrative findings of fact are 233 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 1
compelled to conclude to the contrary .” 8 U.S.C. 2

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

. 3
Zhang and Zhao began practicing Christianity in the 4
United States and alleged a fear of persecution in China as 5

Christians. T o establish a well

- founded fea r of future 6
persecution, they were required to show they would be “singled 7
out individually for persecution” based on their religion or 8
that there was a “pattern or practice” of persecution of 9
similarly situated Christians in China. 8 C.F.R. 10

§ 1208.13(b)( 2); Jian Liang v. Garland , 10 F.4th 106, 117 (2d 11

Cir. 2021). “[T]o establish eligibility for relief based 12
exclusively on activities undertaken after .

. . arrival in 13
the United States,” applicants must demonstrate that 14
“authorities in [their] country of n ationality are (1) aware 15
of [their] activities or (2) likely to become aware of [their] 16

activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 135, 13 8 17

(2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam)

. “ The appropriate burden of 18
proof varies according to the type of relief sought: an 19
applicant must show a clear probability in the withholding 20
context, and only a reasonable possibility in the asylum 214 context.” Id. at 143 (quotation marks omitted). Here, t h e 1

agency reasonably concluded that the petitioners did not 2

establish a well

- founded fear of persecution. 3
The petitioners did not establish that they would be 4
singled out for persecution because they did not allege that 5
Chinese authorities were aware of their religious practice in 6
the United States, and they did not demonstrate a reasonable 7
possibility that Chinese authoriti es would become aware of 8
their religious activities. See id. ; see also Jian Liang , 9

10 F.4th at 117. 1 Zhang testified that she and her husband 10
were not church leaders, and she did not engage in religious 11
activities besides attending church and speaking a bout her 12
faith to friends and family. This record does not 13

demonstrate that they might be singled out for persecution. 14
The petitioners also did not meet their burden to 15

1 The petitioners’ argument that the IJ applied an incorrect standard from Hongsheng Leng is without merit. Hongsheng Leng ’s requirement that petitioners make “some showing that authorities in [their] country of nationality are either aware of . . . or like ly to become aware of [their] activities” applies to both asylum and withholding claims, though for asylum claims the burden of proof is only a “reasonable possibility.” Hongsheng Leng , 528 F.3d at 143;

see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). The IJ’s decision cited the reasonable possibility standard.5 establish a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly 1

situated Christians. S ee Jian Liang , 10 F.4th at 117 2
(holding that petitioner failed to meet his burden where State 3
Department reports established that “treatment of Christians 4

in China varies by locality” and none of petitioner’s evidence 5

showe d persecution occurring in his home province)

. Zhang 6

and Zhao asserted a fear of persecut ion based on the general 7
lack of religious freedom in China and the government’s 8

treatment of Christians who attend unregistered churches, 9

like their two friends who submitted letters . Zhang 10

testified inconsistently regarding whether she would attend 11
a registered or u nregistered church . However, e ven assuming 12
the petitioners would attend an unregistered church in their 13
home city of Fuzhou , Fujian Province , t heir friends’ letters 14
did not state what kind of Christianity they practiced, 15
demonstrate the frequency of arrests of practitioners, or 16

establish that a person practicing the petitioners’ Methodist 17
faith in Fujian would experience similar treatment. See Jian 18
Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 155

– 56, 165 (2d Cir. 2008) 19
(concluding that “unattributed reports” or persecution of 20
“unspecified number” of people was insufficient to show a 216 “reasonable possibility” of persecution). 1
The news reports and country conditions evidence in the 2

record includes only one reference to a possible incident of 3
persecution in Fujian Province where the government banned a 4

Christian church. The State Department’s 2016 report on 5
religious freedom in China reflects that the Chinese 6
government has abused, imprisoned, and physically harmed some 7

Christians for practicing their religion , but also that 8
restrictions varied by locality and “in some areas, members 9
of unregistered churches said that they had more freedom than 10
in the past to conduct religious services, as long as they 11
gathered only in private and kept congregation numbers low.” 12

C ert

. A dmin. R ecord at 746. 13
Given the lack of evidence specific to Fujian Province 14
and the varying treatment of Christians, the agency 15
reasonably concluded that the petitioners failed to establish 16

a well

- foun ded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. 17

§ 1208.13(b)(2 ) ; Jian Liang , 10 F.4th at 117. That 18
determination is dispositive of asylum , withholding of 19

removal , and CAT relief

. See Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 20

119

– 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (failure to show fear of persecution 217 required for asylum “necessarily” precludes meeting higher 1
burden for withholding of removal and CAT relief)

. 2 2
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 3

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 4

stays VACATED. 5

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

2 The CAT claim is also unexhausted and waived because the petitioners did not discuss it in their briefs to the BIA and do not argue it here

. See Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005).