Opinion ID: 1349939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Leng's failure to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal

Text: Because withholding of removal is mandatory once [an] entitlement is established, Tun, 445 F.3d at 565, we review the agency's denial of such relief  essentially, the agency's conclusion that an entitlement has not been established  under the substantial evidence standard, Saleh v. United States Dep't of Justice, 962 F.2d 234, 238 (2d Cir.1992). On appeal, Leng claims that the agency's denial of relief was incorrect in light of record evidence  specifically, background information on the country condition[s] of China and testimony by Xie  indicating that CDP members are subject to severe persecution and torture by the Chinese government. Pet. Br. 21. When seeking asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, an applicant who has not alleged eligibility on the basis of past persecution must establish a well founded fear of future persecution. Tun, 445 F.3d at 564 (internal quotation marks omitted). To demonstrate that [his] fear of persecution is well-founded, such an applicant must establish that his putative persecutor is, or could become, aware of the applicant's possession of the disfavored belief or characteristic. Id. at 565. As we have explained, an applicant can make this showing in one of two ways: first, by offering evidence that he or she would be singled out individually for persecution; and second, by prov[ing] the existence of `a pattern or practice in his or her country of nationality . . . of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant' . . . and . . . establish[ing] `his or her own inclusion in, and identification with, such [a] group.' Id. at 564 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)). Put simply, to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some showing that authorities in his country of nationality are either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities. The appropriate burden of proof varies according to the type of relief sought: an applicant must show a `clear probability' in the withholding context, and only `a reasonable possibility' in the asylum context. Id. at 565 (quoting Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439, 446-47 (BIA 1987)). The IJ, while concluding that Leng had not testified credibly as to his belief that the government of the PRC was aware of his CDP membership and political activities, did not make any specific finding as to whether other evidence in the record supports this claim. Accordingly, we remand this matter for the very limited purpose of allowing the IJ to consider whether authorities of the PRC were (1) aware or (2) likely to become aware of Leng's activities.