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.

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

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

14th 4 day of January, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 RALPH K. WINTER,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 YI TU LIN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-1730 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New 

24 Jersey. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

27 Assistant Attorney General; Daniel 

28 E. Goldman, Senior Litigation 

29 Counsel; Todd Cochran, Trial 
2

1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

2 Litigation, United States 

3 Department of Justice, Washington, 

4 D.C. 

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 is 

8 DENIED. 

9 Petitioner Yi Tu Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 

10 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 1, 2014, decision of 

11 the BIA affirming a November 1, 2011, decision of an immigration 

12 judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum and 

13 withholding of removal. In re Yi Tu Lin, No. A098 230 362 

14 (B.I.A. May 1, 2014), aff’g No. A098 230 362 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 

15 City Nov. 1, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 

16 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 

18 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 

19 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because 

20 the BIA did not adopt or affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility 

21 determination, that finding is not before this Court. Id. The 

22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 
3

1 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 

2 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 

3 Lin alleges a fear that Chinese authorities will persecute 

4 him if he returns to China because of his practice of 

5 Christianity. However, the agency did not err in concluding 

6 that Lin’s fear was not objectively reasonable. Lin did not 

7 allege past persecution, and thus was required either to show 

8 that he would be singled out individually for persecution, or 

9 that the Chinese government engages in a pattern or practice 

10 of persecuting similarly situated persons. 8 C.F.R. 

11 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). He submitted no evidence that he would 

12 be singled out individually for persecution, that is, he did 

13 not assert that Chinese authorities are aware of his practice 

14 of Christianity. 

15 Nor did Lin establish a pattern or practice of persecution 

16 of similarly situated individuals. A pattern or practice is 

17 the “systemic or pervasive” persecution of a group. In re A-M-, 

18 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005). The record contains 

19 some evidence showing that Christians are persecuted, but it 

20 also contains ample evidence suggesting that the targeting is 

21 localized and not systemic throughout China. Accordingly, the 
4

1 agency did not err in finding that Lin’s pattern or practice 

2 claim failed. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 

3 2007) (factfinder’s choice between two permissible views of the 

4 evidence cannot be clearly erroneous); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 

5 546 F.3d 138, 142, 149, 169-72 (2d Cir. 2008) (no error in BIA’s 

6 evidentiary framework requiring applicant to show persecution 

7 in his local area where punishment varies by region). Further, 

8 Lin’s testimony that his pastor was proselytizing in China, and 

9 had safely made such a trip before, undercuts his claim that 

10 the Chinese government generally persecutes people similarly 

11 situated to Lin, i.e., members, not leaders, of underground 

12 churches. 

13 Since Lin did not meet his lower burden of establishing 

14 eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard 

15 required to show entitlement to withholding of removal. See 

16 Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 156. 

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

21 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 
5

1 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

3 34.1(b). 

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk