Liu v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A202 128 997

18-667
Liu v. Barr
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A202 128 997
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
2At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
3for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
4States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
5on the 23
rd
day of January, two thousand twenty.
6
7PRESENT:
8BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
11Circuit Judges.
12_____________________________________
13
14MINGSHENG LIU,
15Petitioner,
16
17v.18-667
18NAC
19WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
20ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21Respondent.
22_____________________________________
23
24FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
25
26FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
27General; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior
28Litigation Counsel; Kevin J.
29Conway, Trial Attorney, Office of
30Immigration Litigation, United
31States Department of Justice,
32Washington, DC.
33
34

1UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4is DENIED.
5Petitioner Mingsheng Liu, a native and citizen of the
6People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 14,
72018 decision of the BIA affirming a June 15, 2017 decision
8of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu asylum,
9withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mingsheng Liu, No. A202 128
11997 (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A202 128 997 (Immig.
12Ct. N.Y.C. June 15, 2017). We assume the parties’
13familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
14history.
15We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
16“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
17Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The
18applicable standards of review are well established. See
198 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332
20(2d Cir. 2013). The agency did not err in concluding that
21Liu failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he suffered
2

1past persecution under China’s family planning policy or a
2well-founded fear of future persecution in China on account
3of his practice of Christianity.
4Family Planning Claim
5Assuming that Liu was targeted for resisting the family
6planning policy, he failed to establish that he suffered
7persecution on account of that resistance. He did not
8allege that the fines imposed caused him “severe economic
9disadvantage” as required to demonstrate economic
10persecution. In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170-75 (BIA
112007); see also Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder, 773 F.3d 396, 405-
1206 (2d Cir. 2014); Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice,
13293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002). Further, the agency did not
14err in concluding that the family planning officials’
15requests for Liu to report for sterilization, their attempt
16to coerce compliance by ransacking his parents’ home, and
17the fines, each and collectively, failed to constitute
18persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (providing that
19forced sterilization under a population control program
20constitutes persecution); Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d
2164, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept
3

1that does not include every sort of treatment our society
2regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted));
3Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y General, 449 F.3d 408, 412–13 (2d
4Cir. 2006) (providing that unfulfilled threats are not
5persecution).
6Because Liu did not demonstrate past persecution under
7the family planning policy, he was not entitled to a
8presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution. See
98 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). And Liu does not challenge the
10agency’s determination that he failed to independently
11demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution under
12the family planning policy.
13Religious Persecution Claim
14Liu does not allege that he suffered past persecution
15for his practice of Christianity. Nevertheless, absent past
16persecution, an alien may still establish eligibility for
17asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future
18persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Hongsheng Leng v.
19Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142 (2d Cir. 2008). To do so, an
20applicant must show either a reasonable possibility that he
21will be singled out for persecution or that the country of
4

1removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly
2situated individuals. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii);
3Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142. “[A]n alien must make some
4showing that authorities in his country of nationality are
5either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of
6his activities.” Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 143.
7The agency did not err in finding that Liu failed to
8establish a well-founded fear of persecution because he did
9not demonstrate that Chinese officials are aware of or
10likely to become aware of his religious activities. Liu
11admitted that Chinese officials do not know about his
12religious practice. As to whether Chinese officials are
13likely to discover his religious activities, Liu testified
14that unspecified individuals would report him to authorities
15for attending church. Given this limited testimony, the
16agency did not err in finding that Liu failed to demonstrate
17a “reasonable possibility” that Chinese officials will
18discover his practice as required to state a fear of future
19persecution. Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 143; see also Jian
20Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
(“In the absence of solid support in the record . . 21. [an
5

1applicant’s] fear is speculative at best.”).
2The agency also did not err in determining that Liu
3failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of
4similarly situated individuals. The IJ acknowledged that
5the country conditions evidence demonstrated that the
6Chinese government restricts religious activities and that
7authorities harass and persecute religious practitioners in
8some areas of China. As the IJ noted, however, the country
9conditions evidence also provides that there are millions of
10Christians in China who practice their religion without
11government interference. Therefore, the agency did not err
12in determining that Liu failed to demonstrate “systemic or
13pervasive” persecution of similarly situated Christians
14sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of
15persecution. In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA
162005); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
17Liu’s failure to establish either past harm rising to
18the level of persecution or a well-founded fear of
19persecution was dispositive of asylum, withholding of
20removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based
21on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
22F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
6

1For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
3stays VACATED.
4FOR THE COURT:
5Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
6Clerk of Court
7
7