1 0-243 3 -ag

Li v. Holder BIA Vomacka,IJ A 078 746 833 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A S UMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNE D 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 1 0 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming 11 Lin Li, No. A078 746 833 (B.I.A. May 26, 2010), aff’g 1 2 No.A078 746 833 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 20, 2008). We 1 3 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 1 4 and procedural history of the case. 1 5 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 1 6 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 1 8 standards of review are well-established. See8 U.S.C. 1 9 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 2 0 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 I. Past Persecution 2 2 The record supports the agency’s determination that Li3 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 1 0 she was arrested, detained, or harassed by the Chinese 1 1 government for her religious activities. Rather, the letter 1 2 stated that she took part in youth group activities, had 1 3 confessions, and “lived a life with strong faith.” 1 4 Moreover, Li testified that neither she, her family members, 1 5 nor any Catholic followers in her village were ever 1 6 arrested. Accordingly, because a reasonable fact-finder 1 7 would not be compelled to find that Li met her burden of 1 8 establishing either that any threats she received from 1 9 Chinese officials rose to the level of persecution or that 2 0 she was unable to practice her religion, we will not disturb 2 1 the agency’s conclusion that Li failed to establish that she 2 2 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. See8 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 1 0 persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 1 1 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively 1 2 reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the record and is 1 3 merely “speculative at best”). 1 4 Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that Li failed 1 5 to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution against 1 6 Catholics in China. See Mufied v. Mukasey , 508 F.3d 88, 91 1 7 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Santoso v. Holder , 580 F.3d 110 (2d 1 8 Cir. 2009). Here, the agency specifically considered Li’s 1 9 evidence and reasonably found that, although there was 2 0 evidence indicating that “the Chinese government shows a 2 1 poor respect for religious freedom in general,” the evidence 2 2 also indicated that most people who have been persecuted5 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 1 0 penalties.” Furthermore, the 2007 Religious Freedom Report 1 1 indicated that the government’s treatment of unregistered 1 2 groups varied widely throughout the country, and that, in 1 3 some regions, “government supervision of religious activity 1 4 was minimal.” Accordingly, substantial evidence supports 1 5 the agency’s determination that Li failed to establish a 1 6 pattern or practice of persecution of Catholics in China who 1 7 are similarly situated to her. See8 U.S.C. 1 8 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland 19 Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007). 2 0 Because Li was unable to show the objective likelihood 2 1 of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim based on 2 2 her Catholic religion, she was necessarily unable to meet6 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 1 0 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 1 5 FOR THE COURT: 1 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk