18-618 Li v. Barr BIA Nelson, IJ A205 616 552

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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 20th day of November, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZHESHAN LI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-618 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Vincent S. Wong, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S. 27 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 28 Surell Brady, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 Zheshan Li, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a decision of the

7 BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Li’s

8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re

10 Zheshan Li, No. A205 616 552 (B.I.A. Feb. 2, 2018), aff’g No.

11 A205 616 552 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 18, 2017). We assume

12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

13 procedural history.

14 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s

15 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”

16 Wangchuck v. DHS,

(2d Cir. 2006). The

17 applicable standards of review are well established.

18

(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder,

, 332

19 (2d Cir. 2013). The agency did not err in finding that Li

20 failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on

21 account of his conversion to Christianity and religious

22 activities in the United States.

23 2 1 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish

2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear

3 of future persecution. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357

(2d Cir. 2004);

(b)(2). To

5 demonstrate a well-founded fear, an applicant must show

6 either a reasonable possibility that he would be singled out

7 for persecution or that the country of removal has a pattern

8 or practice of persecuting similarly situated individuals.

9

(b)(2)(iii). “[The] alien must make some

10 showing that authorities in his country of nationality are

11 either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of

12 his activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,

,

13 143 (2d Cir. 2008).

14 As evidence that Chinese authorities are aware of his

15 religious activities in the United States, Li submitted

16 unsworn letters from his mother and aunt. We defer to the

17 agency’s decision to afford little weight to these unsworn

18 letters from interested witnesses. See Y.C.,

334. Given that Li provided no other independent evidence

20 to support his assertion that authorities are aware of his

21 religious practice, the agency did not err in finding that

22 assertion speculative. See Y.C.,

; see also

23 Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS,

(2d Cir. 2005) 3 1 (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . . [an

2 applicant’s] fear is speculative at best.”).

3 The agency also reasonably concluded that the country

4 conditions evidence does not support Li’s claim. That

5 evidence indicates that tens of millions of Christians

6 practice in unregistered churches in China and that officials

7 do not interfere with religious practice in some areas of the

8 country. Further, that evidence makes no mention of

9 religious persecution in Li’s home province of Jilin. Given

10 the large number of religious practitioners in China and

11 regional variations in the restrictions on their activities,

12 the agency did not err in finding that Li failed to establish

13 a well-founded fear of being singled out for religious

14 persecution. See

(b)(2)(ii); see also Jian

15 Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008)

16 (finding no error in agency’s requirement that applicant

17 demonstrate well-founded fear of persecution specific to his

18 or her local area when persecutory acts vary according to

19 locality). Nor did it err in finding that Li failed to

20 demonstrate that China has a pattern or practice of

21 persecuting Christians similarly situated to himself. See

22

(b)(2)(iii); see also Santoso v. Holder,

23

(2d Cir. 2009). 4 1 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that Li

2 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future

3 persecution, it did not err in denying asylum, withholding of

4 removal, and CAT relief, all of which were based on the same

5 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,

, 156-

6 57 (2d Cir. 2006).

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal

9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

12 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

14 34.1(b).

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

5