10-125-ag Lin v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A075 962 076 

### 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 21 st** **day of March, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **HUA JI LIN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-125-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Hua Ji Lin,** pro se**, Monterey Park,** 23 **CA.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Ethan B. Kanter, Senior** 27 **Litigation Counsel; Jeffrey L.** 28 **Menkin, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, Civil** 30 **Division, United States Department** 31 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 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 petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Hua Ji Lin, a native and citizen of China, 5 seeks review of a December 30, 2009, decision of the BIA 6 affirming the February 13, 2008, decision of Immigration 7 Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew denying his application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hua Ji Lin, No. 10 A075 962 076 (B.I.A. Dec. 30, 2009), aff’gNo. A075 962 076 11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 13, 2008). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA.See Yan Chen 16 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 19 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Lin argues that he suffered past persecution on account 21 of his status as a fisherman when he was injured after 223 government officials commandeered the boat on which he was 1 working. However, the BIA reasonably found that Lin’s 2 injury was the result of an accident, and thus he did not 3 show that the government officials injured him “on account 4 of” his status as a fisherman. See8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). 5 Lin further argues that he was subjected to economic 6 persecution because government officials denied his 7 applications for business licenses and harassed his 8 customers following his public complaints about the 9 government’s failure to compensate him for his injury. 10 However, the agency reasonably concluded that Lin’s 11 testimony, which contained only his speculation as to the 12 motives of government officials in denying the licenses and 13 harassing his customers, did not establish the actual 14 motives behind the officials’ actions, and thus did not 15 establish that he was subjected to persecution “on account 16 of” his opinions. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of 17 Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that the 18 weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence lies largely 19 within the discretion of the agency); 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that “administrative findings of 21 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 22 be compelled to conclude to the contrary”). 234 Because the agency reasonably concluded that Lin did 1 not establish a nexus between his past mistreatment and his 2 political opinion or membership in a particular social 3 group, the agency did not err in denying his applications 4 for asylum and withholding of removal. See Ramsameachire v. 5 Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 6 Lin also argues that the BIA erred in finding that he 7 did not establish his eligibility for CAT relief. However, 8 nothing in the record demonstrates that Lin was subjected to 9 torture or any other deliberate infliction of physical harm, 10 and Lin points to no evidence suggesting that he will be 11 subjected to torture if he returns to China. Thus, he has 12 shown no error in the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Mu 13 Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d 14 Cir. 2005) (explaining that applicants for CAT relief must 15 present evidence establishing that they will more likely 16 than not be tortured). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 19 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 20

FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24