10-2433-ag 

Li v. Holder

BIA

Vomacka, IJ

A 078 746 833

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 18 day of May, two thousand eleven. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 ROBERT D. SACK,

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _______________________________________

12

13 MING LIN LI,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 10-2433-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,

27 Assistant Director; Jessica R. C.

28 Malloy, Trial Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, Civil

30 Division, United States Department

31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is

3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for

4 review is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Ming Lin Li, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 26, 2010,

7 decision of the BIA, affirming the May 20, 2008, decision of

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka, denying her

9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming

11 Lin Li, No. A078 746 833 (B.I.A. May 26, 2010), aff’g

12 No.A078 746 833 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 20, 2008). We

13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

14 and procedural history of the case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.

17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable

18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.

19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513

20 (2d Cir. 2009). 

21 I. Past Persecution

22 The record supports the agency’s determination that Li
3

1 failed to demonstrate that she suffered past persecution. 

2 Although Li argues that she suffered past persecution

3 because government officials interfered with her church to

4 such an extent that she was not allowed to practice her

5 Catholic religion without fear of punishment, she fails to

6 point to any evidence in the record supporting this claim. 

7 Indeed, Li submitted a letter from the archdiocese of her

8 church in China which did not indicate that she was unable

9 to either practice her religion or attend services, or that

10 she was arrested, detained, or harassed by the Chinese

11 government for her religious activities. Rather, the letter

12 stated that she took part in youth group activities, had

13 confessions, and “lived a life with strong faith.” 

14 Moreover, Li testified that neither she, her family members,

15 nor any Catholic followers in her village were ever

16 arrested. Accordingly, because a reasonable fact-finder

17 would not be compelled to find that Li met her burden of

18 establishing either that any threats she received from

19 Chinese officials rose to the level of persecution or that

20 she was unable to practice her religion, we will not disturb

21 the agency’s conclusion that Li failed to establish that she

22 suffered past persecution. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279,
4

1 287 (2d Cir. 2000).

2 II. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

3 Because Li failed to demonstrate that she suffered past

4 persecution, she was not entitled to a presumption of a

5 well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.

6 § 1208.13(b). As Li does not point to any evidence

7 corroborating her assertion that she would be singled out

8 for persecution, the agency reasonably concluded that she

9 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future

10 persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129

11 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively

12 reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the record and is

13 merely “speculative at best”).

14 Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that Li failed

15 to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution against

16 Catholics in China. See Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91

17 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d

18 Cir. 2009). Here, the agency specifically considered Li’s

19 evidence and reasonably found that, although there was

20 evidence indicating that “the Chinese government shows a

21 poor respect for religious freedom in general,” the evidence

22 also indicated that most people who have been persecuted
5

1 were religious leaders, and that Li was not a religious

2 leader nor was she likely to become one. This conclusion is

3 supported by substantial evidence, as the 2007 Religious

4 Freedom Report on China and the 2007 Profile of Asylum

5 Claims and Country Conditions in China Report provided that

6 authorities generally focused their attention on house7 church leaders, activists, unofficial clergy members, and

8 operators of illegal Bible publishing businesses, and that

9 leaders of religious groups were subject to “harsher

10 penalties.” Furthermore, the 2007 Religious Freedom Report

11 indicated that the government’s treatment of unregistered

12 groups varied widely throughout the country, and that, in

13 some regions, “government supervision of religious activity

14 was minimal.” Accordingly, substantial evidence supports

15 the agency’s determination that Li failed to establish a

16 pattern or practice of persecution of Catholics in China who

17 are similarly situated to her. See 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland

19 Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007). 

20 Because Li was unable to show the objective likelihood

21 of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim based on

22 her Catholic religion, she was necessarily unable to meet
6

1 the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for

2 withholding of removal or CAT relief because all three

3 claims rested on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.

4 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Because the

5 agency’s burden finding is dispositive, we decline to reach

6 the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

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

12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

15 FOR THE COURT:

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk