17-516 Liu v. Whitaker BIA Hom, IJ A205 050 448 

### 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 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 19 th**  **day of December, two thousand** 4 **eighteen.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **John M. Walker, Jr.,** 8 **Robert D. Sack,** 9 **Reena Raggi,** 10 Circuit Judges. 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **BO LIU,** 14 Petitioner **,** 15 16 **v. 17-516** 17 **NAC** 18 19 **MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING** 20 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent **.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER:** Thomas D. Barra, New York, NY. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Keith 28 I. McManus, Assistant Director; 29 Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 33 342 UPON 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 Petitioner Bo Liu, a native and cit izen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 23, 2017, 6 decision of the BIA affirming a March 11, 2016, decision of 7 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding 8 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Bo Liu, No. A205 050 448 (B.I.A. Jan. 23, 10 2017), aff’g No. A205 050 448 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 11, 11 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 14 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 15 timeliness and adverse credibility findings the BIA declined 16 to reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 17 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The only issue before us is 18 Liu’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in 19 China on account of his parti cipation in three pro-Falun Gong 20 and pro-democracy protests in the United States. The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 23 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2008). 243 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish 1 eligibility for asylum by de monstrating a well-founded fear 2 of future persecution, 8 C.F .R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must 3 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable, 4 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 5 The applicant “must make some showing that authorities in his 6 country of nationality are either aware of his activities or 7 likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng , 8 528 F.3d at 143. 9 Liu did not assert that Chinese officials are aware of 10 his attendance at protests in the United States. 11 Furthermore, the agency was not compelled to conclude that 12 Chinese officials are likely to become aware of (or be 13 interested in) Liu’s protest activities in the United 14 States based solely on the publication of his photograph 15 attending such protests in 2011 and 2012. See Y.C. v. 16 Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 334, 336-37 (2d Cir. 2013). Indeed, 17 we have rejected as “most unlikely” the suggestion “that 18 the Chinese government is aware of every anti-Communist or 19 pro-democracy piece of commentary published online” and 20 found speculative claims that the Chinese government may 21 discover a few articles or pictures published on the 22 internet years earlier. See id. at 334 (citing Jian Xing 23 Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) 244 (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . ., [an 1 applicant’s] fear is speculative at best”)). 2 Because Liu failed to satisfy his burden of proof that 3 Chinese authorities are aware, or likely to become aware, of 4 his participation in protests, the agency did not err in 5 concluding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of 6 persecution. See Hongsheng Leng , 528 F.3d at 142-43. That 7 finding was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, 8 and CAT relief because all three claims were based on the 9 same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156- 10 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 18 34.1(b). 19

FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 21 Clerk of Court 22 23