Wang v. Barr

18-11
Wang v. Barr
BIA
Cassin, IJ
A205 607 593
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 24
th
day of February, two thousand twenty. 4
5
PRESENT: 6
PIERRE N. LEVAL, 7
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8
GERARD E. LYNCH, 9
Circuit Judges. 10
_____________________________________ 11
12
YAN JUAN WANG, 13
14
Petitioner, 15
16
v. 18-11 17
NAC 18
WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20
21
Respondent. 22
_____________________________________ 23
24
FOR PETITIONER: G. Victoria Calle, New York, NY. 25
26

2

FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 1
General; Terri J. Scadron, 2
Assistant Director; Siu P. Wong, 3
Trial Attorney, Office of 4
Immigration Litigation, United 5
States Department of Justice, 6
Washington, DC. 7
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10
is DENIED. 11
Petitioner Yan Juan Wang, a native and citizen of the 12
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 6, 13
2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 21, 2017, decision 14
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for 15
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 16
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yan Juan Wang, No. 17
A 205 607 593 (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 607 593 18
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 21, 2017). We assume the parties’ 19
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 20
in this case. 21
We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 22
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 23
Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 24

3

applicable standards of review are well established. See 1
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 2
(2d Cir. 2013). 3
Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 4
eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear 5
of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); 6
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 7
To demonstrate a well-founded fear, an applicant must show 8
either a reasonable possibility that she would be singled out 9
for persecution or that the country of removal has a pattern 10
or practice of persecuting similarly situated individuals. 11
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); see In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. 12
Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005) (recognizing that a pattern or 13
practice of persecution is the “systemic or pervasive” 14
persecution of a group). “[I]n order to establish 15
eligibility for relief based exclusively on activities 16
undertaken after [her] arrival in the United States, an alien 17
must make some showing that authorities in [her] country of 18
nationality are (1) aware of [her] activities or (2) likely 19
to become aware of [her] activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. 20
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir. 2008). 21

4

Wang contends she has a well-founded fear of persecution 1
by reason of her conversion to Christianity and her religious 2
practice. Wang does not allege that the Chinese government 3
is aware of her religious practice, and she does not challenge 4
the agency’s ruling that she had not shown a reasonable 5
possibility that she would be singled out for persecution. 6
Instead, Wang argues that there is a reasonable possibility 7
that the Chinese government will become aware of her religious 8
practice because she intends to attend an underground church, 9
and that there is a reasonable possibility that she will be 10
persecuted as a result because the government has a pattern 11
or practice of persecuting similarly situated Christians. 12
However, the agency reasonably concluded that Wang failed to 13
show a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians who 14
attend unregistered churches in China. 15
The State Department’s 2015 International Religious 16
Freedom Report states that there are approximately 45 million 17
Christians practicing in unregistered churches in China and 18
that authorities in some areas of the country allow 19
unregistered churches to hold services “provided they 20
remained small in scale,” although authorities in other areas 21

5

target and close such churches. See Rep. at 3, 14.
1
It 1
further reports that China’s State Administration for 2
Religious Affairs policy provides that “family and friends 3
have the right to meet at home for worship, including prayer 4
and Bible study, without registering with the government.” 5
Id. at 6. The news reports in the record concern abuses 6
against people who are not similarly situated to Wang—who 7
testified that she would attend services at an unregistered 8
church, but not that she would take a leadership role, 9
proselytize, or engage in other activism—or concern areas of 10
China other than Wang’s native Fujian province. Wang’s 11
mother asserted in a letter that others had told her that 12
authorities were “strict” with underground churches, but the 13
letter provided no information about abuses. Similarly, Wang 14
testified that she had heard from family and friends that the 15
government persecuted church members, but she was not aware 16
of any instances of persecution. 17
Given the large number of Christians practicing in 18
unregistered churches and the fact that the restrictions on 19

1
The report is available at https://2009-
2017.state.gov/documents/organization/256309.pdf.

6

their activities varied by region, the agency did not err in 1
determining that Wang failed to demonstrate the systemic or 2
pervasive persecution of similarly situated Christians needed 3
to show a pattern or practice. See 8 C.F.R. 4
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); see also Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 5
110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of pattern or 6
practice claim where evidence reflected that violence was not 7
nationwide and that Catholics in many parts of Indonesia were 8
free to practice their faith); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 9
F.3d 138, 149, 169–70 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding no error in the 10
agency’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate a well-11
founded fear of persecution specific to his or her local area 12
of China when persecutory acts vary according to locality). 13
Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Wang 14
failed to satisfy her burden of proving a well-founded fear 15
of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). 16
Because the agency reasonably found that Wang failed to 17
demonstrate the well-founded fear of persecution needed for 18
asylum, she “necessarily” failed to meet the higher standards 19
for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Lecaj v. Holder, 20
616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010). 21

7

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2
stays VACATED. 3
FOR THE COURT: 4
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 5
Clerk of Court 6