10-2732-ag

Jin v. Holder

BIA

Chew, IJ

A098 612 029

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.

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 23rd 4 day of June, two thousand eleven.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 PETER W. HALL,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _______________________________________

12

13 CHUN ZHI JIN,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 10-2732-ag

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

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

24

25 FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Ada E. Bosque, Senior

27 Litigation Counsel; Jonathan

28 Robbins, Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, United

30 States Department of Justice,

31 Washington, D.C.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

4 is DENIED.

5 Chun Zhi Jin, a native and citizen of China, seeks

6 review of a June 14, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the

7 August 14, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George

8 T. Chew, which denied his application for asylum,

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin, No. A098 612 029

11 (B.I.A. June 14, 2010), aff’g No. A098 612 029 (Immig. Ct.

12 N.Y. City Aug. 14, 2008). We assume the parties’

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

14 in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue

17 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d

18 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.

20 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The only matter

21 properly before us is whether Jin met his burden of

22 demonstrating either past persecution or a well-founded fear

23 of future persecution. 
3

1 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), an individual is not per

2 se eligible for asylum based on the forced abortion or

3 sterilization of a spouse or partner because “applicants can

4 become candidates for asylum relief only based on

5 persecution that they themselves have suffered or must

6 suffer.” Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d

7 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N.

8 Dec. 520, 536-37 (A.G. 2008) (adopting this Court’s holding

9 in Shi Liang Lin). In the absence of per se persecution

10 based on his wife’s abortions, Jin was required to show

11 “other resistance to a coercive population control program”

12 and that he was persecuted as a result of that resistance. 

13 Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 309-10. The agency reasonably

14 concluded that Jin did not engage in other resistance

15 because impregnating his wife, the only basis Jin asserted,

16 does not satisfy the other resistance requirement. See Shi

17 Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 314-15 (indicating that “other

18 resistance” requirement was not satisfied by impregnation);

19 see also Ru-Jian Zhang v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 531, 532 (5th

20 Cir. 2004) (“[M]erely impregnating one’s girlfriend is not

21 alone an act of ‘resistance.’” (emphasis removed)). 

22
4

1 Moreover, as the agency determined, Jin was not

2 persecuted after his wife’s abortions, or after he rendered

3 medical treatment to his cousin. The harm Jin claims is a

4 one-month suspension of his salary on two occasions, not

5 receiving a year-end bonus on two occasions, and being fired

6 from his job after assisting his cousin. These harms do not

7 demonstrate the “deliberate imposition of a substantial

8 economic disadvantage” required to show persecution. See

9 Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 67 (2d

10 Cir. 2002). There is no evidence in the record that the

11 suspension of his salary caused Jin “a severe economic

12 disadvantage,” and he conceded that after his employment was

13 terminated in 1994, he obtained a position as a doctor at a

14 smaller hospital in China, and remained in the country,

15 working, for another five years. See Matter of T-Z-, 24 I.

16 & N. Dec. 163, 173 (BIA 2007); see also Guan Shan Liao, 293

17 F.3d at 67. Accordingly, as the agency concluded, Jin

18 failed to demonstrate that he was subject to economic

19 persecution. 

20 Because the agency reasonably concluded that Jin did

21 not establish past persecution, he is not entitled to a

22 presumption of future persecution, and he makes no argument
5

1 concerning a fear of future persecution independent from the

2 incidents that occurred in the past. See 8 C.F.R.

3 § 1208.16(b)(1); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169,

4 178 (2d Cir. 2004). Consequently, the agency reasonably

5 concluded that Jin did not meet his burden of establishing a

6 well-founded fear of future persecution and did not err in

7 denying his application for asylum. See 8 C.F.R.

8 § 1208.13(b)(1), (2); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d

9 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, because Jin was

10 unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution

11 needed to make out an asylum claim, he was necessarily

12 unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a

13 claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444

14 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660,

15 665 (2d Cir. 1991). 

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6

1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

6

7