14-50 Cheong v. Lynch BIA Straus, IJ A077 933 350 

## 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 13**th**

### day of August, two thousand fifteen. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 7 

### Chief Judge, 8 

### RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 

### CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 

### Circuit Judges**.** 11



### _____________________________________ 12 13 

### SIEW LENG CHEONG, 14 

### Petitioner**,** 15 16 

### v. 14-50 17 

### NAC 18 

### LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 19 

### ATTORNEY GENERAL*, 20 

### Respondent **.** 21 22 23 24 25



### ___________________________________________________________ 26 *Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney 27 General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former 28 Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. 29 30 31

### FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Stamford, Ct. 1 2 

### FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 3 

### General; John S. Hogan, Senior 4 

### Litigation Counsel; Andrea N. Gevas, 5 

### Trial Attorney, Office of 6 

### Immigration Litigation, United 7 

### States Department of Justice, 8 

### Washington, D.C. 9 10 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 

### Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 

### ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 

### is DENIED. 14 

### Siew Leng Cheong, a native and citizen of Malaysia, 15 

### seeks review of a December 16, 2013, decision of the BIA 16 

### affirming the July 1, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge 17 

### denying her applications for withholding of removal and 18 

### relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 19 

### Siew Leng Cheong, No. A077 933 350 (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2013), 20 

### aff’gNo. A077 933 350 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 1, 2013). 21 

### We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 22 

### facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review. 23 

### Under the circumstances of this case, we have 24 

### considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 25 

### sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 26 

### (2d Cir. 2008). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D), we 27 

### lack jurisdiction to review any final order of removal 28 2

### against an alien who, like Cheong, is removable by reason of 1 

### having committed an aggravated felony unless the petition 2 

### raises constitutional claims or questions of law. See 3 

### Ortiz-Franco v. Holder,782 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 2015); see 4 

### Santana v. Holder , 714 F.3d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 2013). 5 

### With regard to withholding of removal, Cheong 6 

### challenges only the agency’s conclusion that the past harm 7 

### she endured did not rise to the level of persecution. Her 8 

### challenge raises a reviewable question of law. See Hui Lin 9 

### Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2012). 10 

### The record supports the agency’s conclusion that, when 11 

### viewed either as isolated events or in the aggregate, Cheong 12 

### was not harmed to the degree necessary to reach the high 13 

### threshold of persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of 14 

### Justice , 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006)(elaborating on the 15 

### meaning of persecution). Cheong testified that on 16 

### approximately three or four occasions in Malaysia, during 17 

### school, after school, or when she was on the bus, Muslim 18 

### boys touched her body with their hands. She was never 19 

### subjected to serious physical or mental harm to the degree 20 

### that her life or freedom was actively threatened, and the 21 

### three or four incidents, considered in the aggregate, do not 22

3

### rise to the level of persecution. See id. ; cf

. Manzur v. 1 

### Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 494 F.3d 281, 290 (2d Cir. 2007) 2 

### (“[A]ccumulation of harm from the individual incidents may 3 

### rise to the level necessary for persecution even though an 4 

### individual incident may not.”). 5 

### Assuming jurisdiction to review Cheong’s CAT claim, 6 

### see Abimbola v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2004), 7 

### substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that she 8 

### did not establish that she would be more likely than not 9 

### tortured if removed. Cheong presented no evidence that 10 

### anyone sought to harm her specifically, and there is no 11 

### evidence of conduct that would rise to the level of torture. 12


### See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17;Lecaj v. Holder, 616 13 

### F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010); Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t 14 

### of Justice , 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2005). 15 

### For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16 

### DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this 17 

### petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 18 

### Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 19 

### 34.1(b). 20


### FOR THE COURT: 21 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24

4