14-4398 Yang v. Whitaker BIA Elstein, IJ A099 682 881 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 23rd day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 XUE JIN YANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-4398 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: WaiSim M. Cheung, New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28 Linda S. Wernery, Assistant 29 Director; Christina Parascandola,

1 04122018-7 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Xue Jin Yang, a native and citizen of the

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 5,

12 2014, decision of the BIA affirming the May 12, 2011, decision

13 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for

14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying her motion to

16 remand. In re Xue Jin Yang, No. A099 682 881 (B.I.A. Nov.

17 5, 2014), aff’g No. A099 682 881 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May

18 12, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

19 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

20 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s

21 decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.

22 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable

23 standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.

24 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

, 157-

2 04122018-7 1 58 (2d Cir. 2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421

(2d Cir. 2005).

3 Yang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

4 relief, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of

5 her children in the United States in violation of China’s

6 population control program. For largely the same reasons as

7 this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in

8 the agency’s determination that Yang failed to satisfy her

9 burden for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

10 See

; see also Paul v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

12 As to Yang’s motion to remand based on her religious

13 practice in the United States, the BIA did not err in finding

14 that she failed to demonstrate her prima facie eligibility

15 for relief because she did not submit evidence that Chinese

16 authorities are aware or likely to become aware of her

17 religious practice. See Jian Hui Shao,

; see

18 also Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

19 2008).

20

21

3 04122018-7 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED.

3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 5 Clerk of Court

4 04122018-7