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 DOCUM** **ENT 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 24 th** **day of November, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YONG CUI,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 14-2231** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Gary J. Yerman, New York, 24 New York. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Cindy S. 28Ferrier, Assistant Director; 1 Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, D.C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Yong Cui, a native and citizen of People’s 11 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 2, 2014, decision 12 of the BIA affirming an August 2, 2013, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cui’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Cui, No. 16 A088 822 631 (B.I.A. June 2, 2014), aff’gNo. A088 822 631 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 2, 2013). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 in this case. 20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 23 applicable standards of review are well established. 24 28 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 1 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish 3 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear 4 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must 5 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable, 6 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 7 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show 8 either that he would be singled out for persecution or that 9 the country of removal has a pattern or practice of 10 persecuting those similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R. 11 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). The agency was not compelled to find 12 that Cui demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in 13 China on account of his intentions to practice his Christian 14 faith in an unregistered church and to proselytize. 15 The IJ reasonably found that the country conditions 16 evidence in the record established that between fifty and 17 seventy million Christians practice in unregistered churches 18 in China, and that in some areas such practice was tolerated 19 without interference. Therefore, the IJ did not err in 20 determining that Cui failed to demonstrate “systemic or 21 3pervasive” persecution of similarly situated Christians 1 sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of 2 persecution in China. In re A-M- , 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 3 (B.I.A. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Santoso v. 4 Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (denying 5 petition where agency considered background materials and 6 rejected pattern-or-practice claim). 7 The IJ also reasonably found that Cui failed to 8 establish an objectively reasonable fear of being singled 9 out for persecution. Cui did not assert that Chinese 10 officials are aware of his religious practice. And, given 11 the tens of millions of unregistered Christian practitioners 12 in China, he did not demonstrate that Chinese officials are 13 likely to discover his practice as required. See Hongsheng 14 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). 15 Furthermore, although the record evidence establishes that 16 public proselytizing is not permitted in China, it does not 17 establish that practitioners, such as Cui, who proselytize 18 face harm rising to the level of persecution. 19 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that 20 Cui failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of 21 4persecution, it did not err in denying asylum, withholding 1 of removal, and CAT relief because those claims were based 2 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 3 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 12
FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14 15 16

5