14-1730 Lin v. Lynch BIA Abrams, IJ A098 230 362 

### 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 for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **14 th**  **day of January, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YI TU LIN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-1730** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New 23 Jersey. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Daniel 27 E. Goldman, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Todd Cochran, Trial 292 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 D.C. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 7

DENIED. 8 Petitioner Yi Tu Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 9 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 1, 2014, decision of 10 the BIA affirming a November 1, 2011, decision of an immigration 11 judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum and 12 withholding of removal. In re Yi Tu Lin, No. A098 230 362 13 (B.I.A. May 1, 2014), aff’g No. A098 230 362 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 14 City Nov. 1, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 15 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 17 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 18 Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because 19 the BIA did not adopt or affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility 20 determination, that finding is not before this Court. Id. The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 223 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 1 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 Lin alleges a fear that Chinese authorities will persecute 3 him if he returns to China because of his practice of 4 Christianity. However, the agency did not err in concluding 5 that Lin’s fear was not objectively reasonable. Lin did not 6 allege past persecution, and thus was required either to show 7 that he would be singled out individually for persecution, or 8 that the Chinese government engages in a pattern or practice 9 of persecuting similarly situated pers ons. 8 C.F.R. 10 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). He submitted no evidence that he would 11 be singled out individually for persecution, that is, he did 12 not assert that Chinese authorities are aware of his practice 13 of Christianity. 14 Nor did Lin establish a pattern or practice of persecution 15 of similarly situated individuals. A pattern or practice is 16

the “systemic or pervasive” persecution of a group. In re A-M- , 17 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005). The record contains 18 some evidence showing that Christians are persecuted, but it 19 also contains ample evidence suggesting that the targeting is 20 localized and not systemic thro ughout China. Accordingly, the 214 agency did not err in finding that Lin’s pattern or practice 1 claim failed. See Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2 2007) (factfinder’s choice between two permissible views of the 3 evidence cannot be clearly erroneous); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 4 546 F.3d 138, 142, 149, 169-72 (2d Cir. 2008) (no error in BIA’s 5 evidentiary framework requiring applicant to show persecution 6 in his local area where punishment varies by region). Further, 7 Lin’s testimony that his pastor was proselytizing in China, and 8 had safely made such a trip before, undercuts his claim that 9 the Chinese government generally persecutes people similarly 10 situated to Lin, i.e., members, not leaders, of underground 11

churches. 12 Since Lin did not meet his lower burden of establishing 13 eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard 14 required to show entitlement to withholding of removal. See 15 Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 156. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 18 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 19 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 20 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 215 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 2 34.1(b). 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5