14-2231

Cui v. Lynch

BIA

Van Wyke, IJ

A088 822 631

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 24th 4 day of November, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 RALPH K. WINTER,

8 PETER W. HALL,

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 YONG CUI,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 14-2231

17 NAC

18

19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

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

25 New York.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant

28 Attorney General; Cindy S.
1 Ferrier, Assistant Director;

2 Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney,

3 Office of Immigration Litigation,

4 United States Department of

5 Justice, Washington, D.C.

6

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

10 is DENIED.

11 Petitioner Yong Cui, a native and citizen of People’s

12 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 2, 2014, decision

13 of the BIA affirming an August 2, 2013, decision of an

14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cui’s application for

15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Cui, No.

17 A088 822 631 (B.I.A. June 2, 2014), aff’g No. A088 822 631

18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 2, 2013). We assume the parties’

19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

20 in this case.

21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions

22 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of

23 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The

24 applicable standards of review are well established. 

2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d

2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

3 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish

4 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear

5 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must

6 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable,

7 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 

8 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show

9 either that he would be singled out for persecution or that

10 the country of removal has a pattern or practice of

11 persecuting those similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R.

12 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). The agency was not compelled to find

13 that Cui demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in

14 China on account of his intentions to practice his Christian

15 faith in an unregistered church and to proselytize.

16 The IJ reasonably found that the country conditions

17 evidence in the record established that between fifty and

18 seventy million Christians practice in unregistered churches

19 in China, and that in some areas such practice was tolerated

20 without interference. Therefore, the IJ did not err in

21 determining that Cui failed to demonstrate “systemic or

3
1 pervasive” persecution of similarly situated Christians

2 sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of

3 persecution in China. In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741

4 (B.I.A. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Santoso v.

5 Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (denying

6 petition where agency considered background materials and

7 rejected pattern-or-practice claim).

8 The IJ also reasonably found that Cui failed to

9 establish an objectively reasonable fear of being singled

10 out for persecution. Cui did not assert that Chinese

11 officials are aware of his religious practice. And, given

12 the tens of millions of unregistered Christian practitioners

13 in China, he did not demonstrate that Chinese officials are

14 likely to discover his practice as required. See Hongsheng

15 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). 

16 Furthermore, although the record evidence establishes that

17 public proselytizing is not permitted in China, it does not

18 establish that practitioners, such as Cui, who proselytize

19 face harm rising to the level of persecution. 

20 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that

21 Cui failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of

4
1 persecution, it did not err in denying asylum, withholding

2 of removal, and CAT relief because those claims were based

3 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444

4 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

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

10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

13 FOR THE COURT: 

14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

15

16

5