2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-16-2013 

# Y u Lin v . Att or ne y Ge ne r al U nit ed S t a t es

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 13-1255

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Y u L in v . Att or ney Ge ne r al U

nit e d S t a t e s " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 215. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/2151 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 1255

___________ YU ZHAN LIN , Petitioner

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES , Respondent

____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A0 8 7

- 978

- 693 ) Immigration Judge: Honorable Frederic G. Leeds

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 11, 2013
Before: FISHER, GARTH and ROTH , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : September 16, 2013 )

___________ OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM
Yu Zhan Lin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”)
final order of removal. W e will deny the petition.2 I.
Lin is a citizen of China who entered the United States without having been admitted or paroled and who concedes that he is removable on that basis. Lin applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the gr ound that he suffered and fears mistreatment for having resisted China’s family planning po licies. Lin and his wife have one child ( both his wife and
child remain in China )

. Lin claims that, when his wife became pregnant again, Chinese
authorities forced her to have an abortion. Lin further claims that he confronted the officials, who “hit” and “beat” him and then called police to accuse him of having
attacked them. The p olice beat Lin with batons, causing bruising on his “body, back, legs, everywhere,” and the n detained him for eight days . When the police release d him, they warned him that that they would put him in jail if he “cau sed trouble” again

. Lin did not seek or require medical treatment for his injuries , and h e left for the United States
appr oximately one year later. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Lin credible but denied relief. In particular,
the IJ concluded that Lin ’s mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution and that
he had not otherwise shown a well

- founded fear of perse cution because his fear of again being punished by Chinese authorities was too speculative. The IJ further concluded that
Lin had not shown a likelihood of persecution for purposes of withholding of removal or a likelihood of torture for purposes of CAT. The BIA dismissed Lin ’s appeal after3

finding no basis to disturb the IJ’s conclusions. Lin petitions for review. 1
II. The Government argues that Lin has waived all issues on review because he has raised no specific challenge to any aspect of the BIA’s decision. It is true that Lin does not expressly assert that the BIA erred in any particular respect, but his brief can be read

to assert two cha llenges to its ruling. Each lacks merit. First, Lin argues that his mistreatment by Chinese authorities cons titutes past persecution giving rise to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well

- founded fear of persecution in the future. See Chen v. Ashcroft , 381 F.3d 221, 22 4 (3d Cir. 2004)

. “While this Court has not yet drawn a precise line concerning where a s imple beating ends and persecution begins, our cases suggest that isolated incidents that do not result in serious injury do not rise to the level of persecution. ” Voci , 409 F.3d at 615. We have
held on numerous occasions that mistreatment similar to Lin ’s is of that kind. See, e.g. , Chen , 381 F.3d at 223, 234

- 35 (beating by family planning officials that did not require
medical treatment together with fiancee ’s forced abortion) ; Jarbough , 483 F.3d at 191 (two detentions and a beating that resulted in br uising but that did not require medical

1 We review the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions together because the BIA both agreed with the IJ’s decision and a dded some of its own reasoning. Voci v. Gonzales , 409 F.3d 607, 61 2

- 13 (3d Cir. 2005)

. W e review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence and may not dist urb them unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Lin

- Z heng v. Att’y Gen. , 557 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)( 4)(B)). “Whether an applicant has demonstrated past persecution is a factual determination reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.” Jarbough v. Att’y Gen. , 483 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted).4

attention)

. Lin argues that his mistreatment rises to the level of persecution when considered cumulatively with his wife’s forced abortion , b ut the BIA expressly
considered them in the aggregate (BIA Dec. at 2), an d we cannot say that the evidence compelled it to conclude to the contrary. See Chen , 381 F.3d at 223, 234

- 35 ( rejecting argument that “ the beatings [petitioner] suffered at the hands of government officials
combine with the forced abortion

. . . in such a way as to constitute past persecution”). Second, Lin challenges the BIA’s ruling that he did not otherwise show a well

founded fear of persecution. The BIA concluded that Lin had not shown an objectively
reasonable possibility o f being subject to perse cution on the speculative ground that he

m ight have more children in the future. See Voci , 409 F.3d at 613. Lin argues that the Agency failed to consider whether he mi ght be persecuted on account of his altercation with family p lanning officials , but the BIA’s analysis accounts for that possibility. Lin
testified that Chinese authorities warned him upon his release that “if, in the future, I cause trouble again, they will put me in jail.” (A.R. 105.) Thus, Lin’s own testimony provides no reason to beli eve that Chinese officials will show any interest in him unless he “cause[s] trouble again,” presumably by violating or resisting the family planning
laws. T he BIA adequately addressed why that speculative possibility does not make him eligible for relief

. 2
For these reasons , we wi ll deny the petition for review

.

2 Lin asserts that he is ent itled to withholding of removal and relief under CAT because he has satisfied the standard for asylum. Lin has not satisfied the standard for asylum,5

and even if he had it would not establish his entitlement to th ese different forms of relief.