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.

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 11th 4 day of April, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

8 PETER W. HALL,

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 QUANWEN LIU, AKA ZHAO WU ZHOU,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 12-4620

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Esq., New York,

24 New York.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

27 General; Erica B. Miles, Senior

28 Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd

29 Busen, Trial Attorney, Office of

30 Immigration Litigation, United

31 States Department of Justice,

32 Washington, D.C.
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 Quanwen Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s

6 Republic of China, seeks review of an October 24, 2012,

7 order of the BIA affirming the October 18, 2010, decision of

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, which denied his

9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Quanwen

11 Liu, No. A088 378 218 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2012), aff’g No. A088

12 378 218 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 18, 2010). We assume the

13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

14 procedural history in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan

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

18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8

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

20 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 

21 An individual is not per se eligible for asylum based

22 on the forced abortion or sterilization of a spouse or

23 partner because “applicants can become candidates for asylum

2
1 relief only based on persecution that they themselves have

2 suffered or must suffer.” Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of

3 Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2007). In the absence

4 of per se persecution based on his wife’s abortion, Liu must

5 show “other resistance to a coercive population control

6 program” and that he was persecuted as a result of that

7 resistance. See id. 

8 Even assuming that hiding his wife from authorities

9 constituted “other resistance,” Liu’s claim that the

10 confiscation of his boat constituted persecution fails, as

11 he has not shown that he suffered “the deliberate imposition

12 of a substantial economic disadvantage.” Guan Shan Liao v.

13 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002)

14 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Further, his

15 alleged emotional distress as a result of his wife’s forced

16 abortion does not rise to the level of persecution. 

17 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342, 341

18 (2d Cir. 2006) (differentiating between emotional pain from

19 “physical abuse and violence,” and holding that even

20 “substantial emotional distress” generally does not amount

21 to persecution); see also Tao Jiang v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d

22 137, 141-43 (2d Cir. 2007). 

3
1 Liu also argues that he has demonstrated a well-founded

2 fear of future persecution. “[T]o establish a well-founded

3 fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past

4 persecution, an alien must make some showing that

5 authorities in his country of nationality are either aware

6 of his activities or likely to become aware of his

7 activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143

8 (2d Cir. 2008).

9 The basis for Liu’s future persecution claim is that he

10 began to practice Falun Gong in the United States, and he

11 feared he would be persecuted and jailed if he returned to

12 China because he attended a Falun Gong demonstration in

13 Washington, D.C., in 2010. However, Liu’s conclusory claim,

14 that the Chinese government is likely to become aware of his

15 participation in a demonstration because it monitors such

16 events, is speculative and insufficient to show an

17 objectively reasonable fear of future harm. Kyaw Zwar Tun

18 v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 565 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Jian Xing

19 Huang v. United States INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)

20 (holding that “absent solid support in the record” a fear of

21 persecution is “speculative at best”). 

22

4
1 Because Liu has not established either past persecution

2 or a well-founded fear of future persecution, the agency did

3 not err in denying his application for asylum. See 8 C.F.R.

4 § 1208.13(b); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178

5 (2d Cir. 2004). Moreover, because Liu was unable to show

6 the objective fear of persecution needed to make out an

7 asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher

8 standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of

9 removal or CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111,

10 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion

13 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 

14

15 FOR THE COURT: 

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

17

18

19

5