12-4620 Liu v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A088 378 218 

### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 11 th** **day of April, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **QUANWEN LIU, AKA ZHAO WU ZHOU,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-4620** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Esq., New York,** 23 **New York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Erica B. Miles, Senior** 27 **Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd** 28 **Busen, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 32UPON 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 Quanwen Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of an October 24, 2012, 6 order of the BIA affirming the October 18, 2010, decision of 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, which denied his 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Quanwen 10 Liu , No. A088 378 218 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2012),aff’gNo. A088 11 378 218 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 18, 2010). 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 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 16 Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well-established. See8 18 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 19 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 An individual is not per seeligible for asylum based 21 on the forced abortion or sterilization of a spouse or 22 partner because “applicants can become candidates for asylum 23 2relief only based on persecution that they themselves have 1 suffered or must suffer.” Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of 2 Justice , 494 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2007). In the absence 3 of per se persecution based on his wife’s abortion, Liu must 4 show “other resistance to a coercive population control 5 program” and that he was persecuted as a result of that 6 resistance. See id

. 7 Even assuming that hiding his wife from authorities 8 constituted “other resistance,” Liu’s claim that the 9 confiscation of his boat constituted persecution fails, as 10 he has not shown that he suffered “the deliberate imposition 11 of a substantial economic disadvantage.” Guan Shan Liao v. 12 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Further, his 14 alleged emotional distress as a result of his wife’s forced 15 abortion does not rise to the level of persecution. 16 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 433 F.3d 332, 342, 341 17 (2d Cir. 2006) (differentiating between emotional pain from 18 “physical abuse and violence,” and holding that even 19 “substantial emotional distress” generally does not amount 20 to persecution); see also Tao Jiang v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 21 137, 141-43 (2d Cir. 2007). 22

3Liu also argues that he has demonstrated a well-founded 1 fear of future persecution. “[T]o establish a well-founded 2 fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past 3 persecution, an alien must make some showing that 4 authorities in his country of nationality are either aware 5 of his activities or likely to become aware of his 6 activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 7 (2d Cir. 2008). 8 The basis for Liu’s future persecution claim is that he 9 began to practice Falun Gong in the United States, and he 10 feared he would be persecuted and jailed if he returned to 11 China because he attended a Falun Gong demonstration in 12 Washington, D.C., in 2010. However, Liu’s conclusory claim, 13 that the Chinese government is likely to become aware of his 14 participation in a demonstration because it monitors such 15 events, is speculative and insufficient to show an 16 objectively reasonable fear of future harm. Kyaw Zwar Tun 17
v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 565 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Jian Xing 18 Huang v. United States INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) 19 (holding that “absent solid support in the record” a fear of 20 persecution is “speculative at best”). 21
22

4Because Liu has not established either past persecution 1 or a well-founded fear of future persecution, the agency did 2 not err in denying his application for asylum. See8 C.F.R. 3 § 1208.13(b); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 4 (2d Cir. 2004). Moreover, because Liu was unable to show 5 the objective fear of persecution needed to make out an 6 asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher 7 standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of 8 removal or CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder,616 F.3d 111, 9 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010). 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 12 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 13
14
FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 18 19

5