16

- 3284 Chen v. Sessions BIA Poczter , IJ A 078 729 935 

### 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 COU**  **RT, 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 for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States**  2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in**  **the City of New York, on th e**  3 **20 th**  **da y of**  **October ,**  **two thousand s**  **even tee**  **n.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YONG LE CHEN ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v.** 16

- 3284 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 19 **Respondent .**  20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Richard Tarzia , Law Office of 23 Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General ; Leslie McKay, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Aaron D. 28 Nelson, Trial Attorney, Office of 292 Immigra tion Litigation , United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review is 7

DENIED

. 8

Petitioner Yong Le Chen , a native and citizen of the 9

People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a n August 24, 2016 , 10

decision of the BIA affirming a June 30, 2015 , decision of an 11

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen ’s application for asylum, 12

withholdin g of removal , and relief under the Convention Against 13

Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Le Chen , No. A 078 729 935 (B.I.A. 14

Aug. 24, 2016 ), aff’g No. A 078 729 935 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 15

June 30, 2015 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16

underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17

We have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA

. 18

See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 19

applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 20

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanq in Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 21

513 (2d Cir. 2009). 22

Chen challenges the agency’s determination that his 233 punishment for violating the family planning policy did not 1

amount to past persecution. “[P]ersecution is the infliction 2

of suffering or harm upon tho se who differ on the basis of a 3

protected statutory ground.” Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of 4

Justice , 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted)

. 5

It includes “non

- physical forms of harm such as the deliberate 6

imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage.” Mei Fun 7

Wong v. Holder , 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) ( internal 8

quotation marks and citations omitted ). 9

Chen alleged that he was detain ed for two days and slapped 10

twice, fined, and fired from his job. The agency was on sound 11

footing in concluding that, even when viewed cumulatively , this 12

punishment did not amount to persecution. Poradisova v. 13

Gonzales , 420 F.3d 70, 79 (2d Cir. 2005) ( th e agency cannot 14

consider “the severity of each event in isolation, without 15

consider ing its cumulative significance”). The slapping 16

during detention was not per se persecution. See Jian Qiu 17

Liu v. Holder , 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining that 18

“minor bruising from an altercation with family planning 19

officials, which required no formal medical attention and had 20

no lasting physical effect,” did not amount to persecution ); 214 Mei Fun Wong , 633 F.3d at 72 ( “[P]ersecution is an extreme 1

concept that does not include every sort of treatment our 2

society regards as offensive

. ” (internal quotation marks and 3

citations omitted) )

. Nor did Chen demonstrate that the fine 4

and job loss caused him “ substantial economic disadvantage .” 5
Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 293 F.3d 61, 7 0 (2d 6

Cir. 2002). He testified that his wife’s family loaned them 7
money for the fine, which they repaid within three years, while 8

still making mortgage payments. Chen was also able to obtain 9

another similar job within two months. Cf. Huo Qiang Chen v. 10

Holder , 773 F.3d 396, 409 (2d Cir. 2014) (remanding for further 11

proceedings because applicant testified that he could not earn 12

enough or obtain a loan to pay a still outstanding fine). 13

Alternatively, Chen claimed to fear future persec ution 14

based on his resistance to the family planning policy. The IJ 15

rejected this claim, noting that Chen’s wife ha d live d in China 16

without incident since their second child was born six years 17

ago. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 18

1999) (evidence that applicant’s “mother and daughters 19

continued to live in El Salvador after Melgar emigrated without 20

harm” undercut well

- founded fear of persecution). The agency 215 reasonably concluded that Chen failed to show that he would be 1

punished a second time for the policy violation. Jian Hui Shao 2

v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 14 8

- 4 9 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring that 3

applicant show applicable family planning policy, violation of 4

that policy, and that the violation “would be punished in the 5

local area in a way that would give rise to an objective fear 6

of future persecution”). 7

Chen also claimed a well

- founded fear based on his 8

religious practice. That fear must be objectively reasonable. 9

Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 128

- 29 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In 10

the absence of solid support in the record

. . . , [the 11

applicant’s] fear is speculative at best

. ”). The agency 12

reasonably determined that , even assuming the police once 13

looked for Chen four years earlier , the ba ckground evidence on 14

China does not demonstrate that Chen’s fear was objectively 15

reasonable. The State Department reports explain that China 16

recognizes only five religions and harasses and detains some 17

religious practitioners ; but the reports do not refle ct a 18

nationwide pattern or practice of persecution of Christians. 19

More importantly, as the IJ noted, reports over the last three 20

years have not mentioned persecution against Christians in 216 Chen’s native Fujian province. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 1

142

- 43, 149, 170 (finding no error in the agency’s requirement 2

that an applicant demonstrate a well

- founded fear of 3

persecution specific to his or her local area when persecutory 4

acts vary according to locality). 5
Chen argues that the agency erroneously applied too 6

stringent a standard to his asylum claim, which require s a 7
“reasonable possibility of future persecution. ” Y.C. v. 8

Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). Twice, the IJ wrote 9

that future harm was not likely , as opposed to not a reasonable 10

possibil ity. But t he IJ cited the correct standard , referenced 11

the more generous standard for asylum, and gave no indication 12

of applying anything more stringent

. In any event, the BIA 13

reviewed de novo the IJ’s determinations that Chen failed to 14

establish a well

- founded fear of persecution, asking only 15

whether he faced a reasonable possibility of persecution. 16

Having reasonably found that Chen failed to establish the 17

less stringent requirements needed for asylum, the agency did 18

not err in denying withholding of r emoval or CAT relief. See 19

Gomez v. INS , 947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991). 20

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 217 DENIED . As we have co mpleted our review, any stay of removal 1

that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 2

and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 3

is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 4

in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 5
Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 6

34.1(b). 7

FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 9