Case Name: BIXIAN LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-11
Citations: 648 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 13-4522
Parties: BIXIAN LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, SUSAN L. CARNEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
BIXIAN LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-4522.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 11, 2016.
Robert Tsigler, Law Offices of Yu & Associates, PLLC, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigartion Counsel; Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, SUSAN L. CARNEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted as the respondent in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Bixian Lin, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a November 7, 2013 order of the BIA affirming the May 29, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge ("U"), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Bixian Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 29, 2012). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ's decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).
Lin claims that she fears Chinese authorities will persecute her if she returns to China because she is a member of the China Democracy Party. However, the agency did not err in concluding that Lin's fear of future persecution was not objectively réasonable. Lin did not allege past persecution, and thus was required either to show that she would be singled out individually for persecution, or that the Chinese government engaged in a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly situated persons. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
Contrary to Lin's assertion on appeal, .the BIA properly reviewed the IJ's findings regarding the likelihood of future events occurring for clear error. See Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 134-35 (2d Cir.2012).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Lin failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated individuals. The record is devoid of evidence that the Chinese government persecutes individuals similarly situated to Lin, that is, low-level pro-democracy activists whose activism occurs only abroad. See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.2009).
Nor did the agency err in concluding that Lin did not establish an objectively reasonable fear that she would be singled out for harm. The only individualized evidence she offered that the Chinese government knows of her pro-democracy activism is an unsworn letter from her father, an interested witness not subject to cross-examination. This was permissibly discounted by the agency. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006); see also Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005).
Since Lin did not meet her lower burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and since her claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief rely on the same arguments as her asylum claim, she cannot meet the higher standard required to show entitlement to these other forms of relief. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 156 (2d Cir.2008).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.