09-07 82-ag

Lin v. Holder BIA IJ, Brennan A 095 708 580 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARYO RDER 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 15 day of January, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 10 Circuit Judges . 11 12

_____________________________________ 13 14 NUAN LIN, 15 Petitioner , 16 17 v. 09-0782-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC J. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent . 22 23

______________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: G. Victoria Calle, New York, New 26 York.2 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Emily Anne Radford, 3 Assistant Director; David Schor, 4 Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, D.C. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 0 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 2 is DENIED. 1 3 Nuan Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review 1 4 of a January 29, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the 1 5 September 21, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel 1 6 Brennan, which denied her application for relief under the 1 7 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin , No. A095 708 1 8 580 (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2009), aff’gNo. A095 708 580 (Immig. 1 9 Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 21, 2006). We assume the parties’ 2 0 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 2 1 in this case. 2 2 Under the circumstances of this case, this Court 2 3 reviews the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. 24 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 5 The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 26 Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 494 F.3d 281, 288-893 1 (2d Cir. 2007); Bah v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2 2008). 3 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of 4 Lin’s application for CAT relief. In the absence of any 5 particularized evidence, an applicant cannot demonstrate 6 that she is more likely than not to be tortured “based 7 solely on the fact that she is part of the large class of 8 persons who have left China illegally” and on generalized 9 evidence indicating that torture occurs in Chinese prisons. 10 Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 1 1 (2d Cir. 2005). 1 2 While Lin argues that her testimony expressing a 1 3 general fear of being punished for her illegal departure 1 4 combined with background evidence attesting to the 1 5 increasing prevalence of torture in China should suffice to 1 6 establish that she will more likely than not be tortured if 1 7 removed to China, this evidence does not demonstrate that 1 8 someone in her “particular alleged circumstances,” is likely 1 9 to face torture. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft , 320 F.3d 2 0 130, 143-44 (2d Cir. 2003). Therefore, substantial evidence 2 1 supports the agency’s conclusion that she failed to 2 2 establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Pierre v.4 1 Gonzales , 502 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 2 beyond evidence of inhumane prison conditions, a CAT 3 claimant must provide some evidence that the authorities act 4 with the specific intent to inflict physical or mental pain 5 or suffering on those detained). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 0 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 3 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 1 4 FOR THE COURT: 1 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 1 8 By:___________________________