19

- 896 Li u v. Garland BIA Poczter , IJ A 205 610 836 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 3**  **0 t**  **h da**  **y of N**  **o v**  **e m**  **b e**  **r ,**  **two thousand twenty** 
**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN ,**  7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JINBIN LIU ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 19** 

**- 896**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Adedayo O. Idowu, Esq., New York, 23 N Y

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant 26 Attorney General; Mary Jane 27 Candaux , Assistant Director ; 28 Stephen Finn , Trial Attorney , 29 Office of Immigration Litigation , 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 322 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 petitio n for review 3

is DENIED. 4

Petitioner Jinbin Liu , a native and citizen of the 5
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a March 13, 2019 , 6
decision of the BIA affirming a July 10, 2017 , decision of an 7
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of 8

removal , and relief under the Convention A gainst Torture 9

(“CAT”). In re Jinbin Liu , No. A 205 610 836 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 10

2019 ), aff’g No. A 205 610 836 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 10, 11

2017 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12
underlying facts and procedural history. 13

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 14
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 15

Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 16
applicable standards of review are well established. Y.C. 17

v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). The agency did 18
not err in finding that, although credible, Liu failed to 19
persuasively establish a well

- founded fear of persecution on 20

account of his pro - democracy activities in the United States. 21

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“ The testimo ny of the 223 applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden 1
without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies 2
the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, 3
is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to 4

demon strate that the applicant is a refugee.” )

. 5
Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish 6
eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well

- founded fear 7
of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), “which 8
requires that the alien present credible t estimony that he 9
subjectively fears persecution and establish that his fear is 10
objectively reasonable,” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 11
169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To demonstrate an objectively 12
reasonable fear, an applicant must show either that he would 13

be “ singled out ” for persecution or that the country of 14

removal has a “ pattern or practice ” of persecuting “ similarly 15

situated ” individuals. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). 16
“[I]n order to establish eligibility for relief based 17
exclusively on activities undertaken after his arrival in the 18
United States, an alien must make some showing that 19
authorities in his country of nationality are (1) aware of 20

his activities or (2) likely to become aware of his 21

activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 135 , 138 224 (2d Cir. 2008). 1
The agency reasonably declined to credit an unsworn 2

letter from Liu’s wife asser ting that Chinese officials know 3
about Liu’s pro

- democracy activities in the United States 4

because the letter was written by an interested witness who 5
was not subject to cross

- examination. S ee Y.C. , 741 F.3d at 6

334. And the agency was not compelled to conclude that Liu ’s 7
testimony in this regard was particularly persuasive. See 8

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Hongsheng Leng , 528 F.3d at 9
143. Further, we have found “most unlikely” the “suggestion 10
that the Chinese government is aware of every anti

- Communist 11

or pro - democracy piece of commentary published online,” and 12

have deemed speculative the assertion that the Chinese 13
government will likely discover political activities in the 14
United States and articles published online years before a 15

noncit izen is removed. Y.C. , 741 F.3d at 334 (citing Jian 16
Xing Huang v. U.S. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In 17
the absence of solid support in the record . . . [an 18
applicant’s] fear is speculative at best

. ”)). Accordingly, 19
the agency reasonably conclu ded that Liu failed to establish 20

that Chinese officials are aware of or likely to become aware 21
of Liu’s pro

- democracy activities. See id. ; Hongsheng Leng , 225 528 F.3d at 138. 1
Alternatively, the agency reasonably found that Liu 2

failed to establish that similarly situated individuals face 3
persecution because “[t]he record is silent as to whether the 4
Chinese government views domestic pro

- democracy advocates 5
differently from Chinese nationals who espouse pro

- democracy 6

ideals abroad.” Y.C. , 741 F.3d at 335

. 7

Because Liu failed to persuasively demonstrate that 8

authorities are aware or are likely to become aware of his 9
political activities in the United States and failed to show 10
an objectively reasonable fear of persecution on account of 11
those activities, the agency reasonably concluded that he 12

failed to establish a well

- founded fear of persecution. See 13

Y.C. , 741 F.3d at 334

– 35; Hongsheng Leng , 528 F.3d at 142. 14
That finding was dispositive of asylum, withholding of 15
removal, and CAT relief because all three cl aims were based 16
on the same factual predicate. * See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 17
F.3d 148, 156

- 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 18

* The BIA and Government incorrectly conclude that Liu waived his CAT claim before the BIA. The IJ denied CAT relief because Liu failed to satisfy the lower burden of proving the well

- founded fear required for asylum and thus Liu’s challenge to that findin g on appeal to the BIA necessarily included a challenge to the denial of CAT relief.6 For the foregoing reaso ns, the petition for review is 1

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6