10-2225-ag Shi v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A094 922 372 

### 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 22 nd** **day of March, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**______________________________________** 11 12 **YING SHI**, **AKA YING XING SHI,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **10-2225-ag** 16 **v. NAC** 17 18 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent**.** 22

**______________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, New York**

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant** 28 **Director; Virginia Lum, Attorney,** 29 **Office of Immigration Litigation,** 30 **Civil Division, United States** 31 **Department of Justice, Washington,** 32 **D.C.** 332 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner, Ying Shi, a native and citizen of China, 5 seeks review of a May 11, 2010, decision of the BIA 6 affirming the May 29, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge 7 (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying his application for asylum, 8 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 9 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ying Shi , No. A094 922 372 10 (B.I.A. May 11, 2010), aff’gNo. A094 922 372 (Immig. Ct. 11 N.Y. City May 29, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity 12 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the 13

case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 16 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 17 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 18
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 19 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Shi does not challenge the agency’s findings that he 21 did not suffer past persecution, but argues that he 22 established that he will be targeted for sterilization upon 233 return to China because of his “other resistance” to China’s 1 family planning policy. The agency reasonably determined 2 that Shi failed to establish that his fear of future 3 persecution was objectively reasonable, given that he only 4 claims to have heard from other people that family planning 5 officials wanted to sterilize him, he lived and worked in 6 his home province for one year without incident after he 7 heard that family planning officials wanted to sterilize 8 him, and he did not testify that he took any efforts to 9 conceal his presence during that time. See Jian Xing Huang 10

v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a 11 fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid 12 support” in the record and is merely “speculative at 13 best.”). Cf. Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 307, 313 14 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding that where asylum applicant’s mother 15 and daughters continued to live in petitioner’s native 16 country, claim of well-founded fear was diminished). 17 Although Shi claims that background materials 18 established the objective reasonableness of his fear, Shi 19 did not present any evidence of forced sterilization in his 20 home province of Fujian, see Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 21 F.3d 138, 160-61, 169-70 (2d Cir. 2008), and the BIA 22 specifically addressed the background evidence submitted and 234 reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish 1 that Shi would be unable to live securely outside of his 2 home village, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 3 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). 4 Because objective evidence of future harm is required 5 for withholding of removal and CAT relief, the agency did 6 not err in denying relief based on Shi’s failure to 7 establish that his fear of future sterilization was 8 objectively reasonable. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 9 F.3d 169, 178, 183-86 (2d Cir. 2004) (providing that CAT 10 claim requires petitioner to “proffer objective evidence 11 that he or she is likely to be tortured in the future”). 12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 13

DENIED. 14
FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 18