16-3614 Wu v. Whitaker BIA Hom, IJ A088 526 169 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 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 9th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PETER W. HALL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MEI PING WU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3614 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 27 Assistant Director; Kristin 28 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Mei Ping Wu, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 5,

7 2016 decision of the BIA affirming an August 5, 2015 decision

8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wu’s application for

9 asylum. In re Mei Ping Wu, No. A088 526 169 (B.I.A. Oct. 5,

10 2016), aff’g No. A088 526 169 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 5,

11 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

12 underlying facts and procedural history.

13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

14 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

15 completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS,

(2d Cir.

16 2006). The applicable standards of review are well

17 established.

(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.

18 Mukasey,

, 165–66 (2d Cir. 2008). Wu does not

19 challenge the agency’s decisions related to her family

20 planning claim; accordingly, the only issue before us is the

21 agency’s denial of asylum based on Wu’s fear of future

22 religious persecution. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426

, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (claim not raised

2 1 in brief is abandoned).

2 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish

3 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear

4 of future persecution.

(b)(2);

5 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,

(2d Cir.

6 2004). To demonstrate a well-founded fear, an applicant

7 must show either a reasonable possibility that she would be

8 singled out for persecution or that the country of removal

9 has a pattern or practice of persecuting individuals

10 similarly situated to her.

(b)(2)(iii).

11 “[The] alien must make some showing that authorities in

12 h[er] country of nationality are either aware of h[er]

13 activities or likely to become aware of h[er] activities.”

14 Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

15 2008).

16 Wu did not assert that Chinese officials are aware of

17 her religious practice. And, given that approximately 45

18 million individuals practice in unregistered churches in

19 China, the agency did not err in finding that she failed to

20 demonstrate that Chinese officials are likely to discover her

21 practice as required. See

Further, in some areas of

22 China religious practice is tolerated without interference.

23 Therefore, the agency did not err in determining that Wu

3 1 failed to demonstrate “systemic or pervasive” persecution of

2 similarly situated Christians sufficient to demonstrate a

3 pattern or practice of persecution in China. In re A-M-, 23

, 741 (B.I.A. 2005) (citation omitted); see

5 also Santoso v. Holder,

, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009)

6 (denying petition where agency considered background

7 materials and rejected pattern-or-practice claim).

8 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that Wu

9 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future

10 persecution, it did not err in denying asylum based on her

11 religious practice. See

(b)(2). Given

12 the agency’s dispositive finding, we do not reach the agency’s

13 alternative determination that Wu was not credible.

14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

15 DENIED.

16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 18 Clerk of Court 19

4