19

- 3424 Lin v. Ga rland BIA Mulligan, IJ A 056 063 001 

### 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 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 Circ uit, held at the Thurgood Marshall**  2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 15**  **th day of**  **March , two thousand twenty** 

**- two** 

**.** 4
5 **PRESENT:** 6 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER ,**  7 **REENA RAGGI ,**  8 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11
12 **JING LIN,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14
15

**v. 19** 

**- 3424**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED**  18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21
22 **FOR PETITIONER:** John Son Yong, Esq. , New York , 23 NY

. 24
25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Ethan P. Davis , Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius , 27 Assistant Director; Elizabeth K. 282 Fitzgerald

- Sambou , Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 4

U PON 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 petition for review 7

is DENIED. 8

Petitioner Jing Lin , a native and citizen of the People’s 9

Republic of China , seeks review of a September 26, 2019 10

decision of the BIA affirming a May 28, 2019 decision of an 11

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for 12

deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture 13

(“CAT”)

. In r e Jing Lin , No. A 056 063 001 (B.I.A. Sept. 26, 14

2019 ), aff’g No. A 056 063 001 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C

. May 28, 15

2019 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 16

facts and procedural history. 17

We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See 18

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 19

Cir. 2006). We review factual challenges to the agency’s 20

denial of CAT protection under the substantial

- evidence 21

standard. S ee Nasrallah v. Barr , 140 S. Ct. 1683, 16 92 22

(2020). An applicant for CAT relief has the burden to show 233 that he would “more likely than not” be tortured by or with 1

the acquiescence of government officials. See 8 C.F.R. 2

§§ 1208.16(c) (2) , 1208.17(a ) ; see also Khouzam v. Ashcroft , 3

361 F.3d 161, 170

– 71 (2d Cir. 2004)

. 4

S ubstantial evidence supports the agency ’s finding that 5

Lin failed to show he would “more likely than not” be tortured 6

if removed to China. Lin argued the Chinese government would 7

prosecute, detain, and potentially use the death penalty 8

against him because he was convicted of a controlled substance 9

offense in the United States . He offered evidence of China’s 10

severe punishment for drug offenses committed in China , 11

including its use of the death penalty. However, as his 12

counsel conceded before the IJ, none of the evidence discuss ed 13

punishment in China for individuals prosecuted for drug 14

offenses outside of China. Lin admitted t hat he did not know 15

wh ether Chinese law provided punishment for people returning 16

to China with foreign drug conviction s or if the Chinese 17

government was aw are of his conviction. Absent evidence of 18

torture of individuals with convictions from outside of 19

China, the agency reasonably deemed Lin’s claim speculative 20

and denied CAT relief

. See Savchuck v. Mukasey , 518 F.3d 214 119, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (“An alien will never be able to show 1

that he faces a more likely than not chance of torture if one 2

link in the chain cannot be shown to be more likely than not 3

to occur. It is the likelihood of all necessary events coming 4

together that must more likely than not lead to torture, and 5

a chain of events cannot be more likely than its least likely 6

link.” (quoting In re J

- F

- F

- , 23 I. & N. Dec. 912, 918 n.4 7

(AG 2006))

. 8

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 10

stays VACATED. 11

FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 13 Clerk of Court 14