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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 19th 4 day of December, two thousand 

5 eighteen. 

6 

7 PRESENT: 

8 John M. Walker, Jr.,

9 Robert D. Sack, 

10 Reena Raggi,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _____________________________________ 

13 

14 BO LIU, 

15 Petitioner, 

16 

17 v. 17-516 

18 NAC 

19 

20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 

21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

22 Respondent. 

23 _____________________________________ 

24 

25 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas D. Barra, New York, NY. 

26 

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 

28 Assistant Attorney General; Keith 

29 I. McManus, Assistant Director; 

30 Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office 

31 of Immigration Litigation, United 

32 States Department of Justice, 

33 Washington, DC. 

34 
2 

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 Petitioner Bo Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s 

6 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 23, 2017, 

7 decision of the BIA affirming a March 11, 2016, decision of 

8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding 

9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

10 (“CAT”). In re Bo Liu, No. A205 050 448 (B.I.A. Jan. 23, 

11 2017), aff’g No. A205 050 448 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 11, 

12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 

15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 

16 timeliness and adverse credibility findings the BIA declined 

17 to reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 

18 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The only issue before us is 

19 Liu’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in 

20 China on account of his participation in three pro-Falun Gong 

21 and pro-democracy protests in the United States. The 

22 applicable standards of review are well established. See

23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 

24 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2008). 
3 

1 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish 

2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear 

3 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must 

4 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable, 

5 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 

6 The applicant “must make some showing that authorities in his 

7 country of nationality are either aware of his activities or 

8 likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng, 

9 528 F.3d at 143. 

10 Liu did not assert that Chinese officials are aware of 

11 his attendance at protests in the United States. 

12 Furthermore, the agency was not compelled to conclude that 

13 Chinese officials are likely to become aware of (or be 

14 interested in) Liu’s protest activities in the United 

15 States based solely on the publication of his photograph 

16 attending such protests in 2011 and 2012. See Y.C. v. 

17 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334, 336-37 (2d Cir. 2013). Indeed, 

18 we have rejected as “most unlikely” the suggestion “that 

19 the Chinese government is aware of every anti-Communist or 

20 pro-democracy piece of commentary published online” and 

21 found speculative claims that the Chinese government may 

22 discover a few articles or pictures published on the 

23 internet years earlier. See id. at 334 (citing Jian Xing 

24 Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) 
4 

1 (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . ., [an 

2 applicant’s] fear is speculative at best”)). 

3 Because Liu failed to satisfy his burden of proof that 

4 Chinese authorities are aware, or likely to become aware, of 

5 his participation in protests, the agency did not err in 

6 concluding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of 

7 persecution. See Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142-43. That 

8 finding was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, 

9 and CAT relief because all three claims were based on the 

10 same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-

11 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

14 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

15 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

16 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

17 in this 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 

22 Clerk of Court 

23