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

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 14,

7 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a June 15, 2017 decision

8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu asylum,

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mingsheng Liu, No. A202 128

11 997 (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A202 128 997 (Immig.

12 Ct. N.Y.C. June 15, 2017). We assume the parties’

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

14 history.

15 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions

16 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of

17 Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). The

18 applicable standards of review are well established. See

19

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

, 332

20 (2d Cir. 2013). The agency did not err in concluding that

21 Liu failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he suffered

2 1 past persecution under China’s family planning policy or a

2 well-founded fear of future persecution in China on account

3 of his practice of Christianity.

4 Family Planning Claim

5 Assuming that Liu was targeted for resisting the family

6 planning policy, he failed to establish that he suffered

7 persecution on account of that resistance. He did not

8 allege that the fines imposed caused him “severe economic

9 disadvantage” as required to demonstrate economic

10 persecution. In re T-Z-,

(BIA

11 2007); see also Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder,

, 405-

12 06 (2d Cir. 2014); Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice,

13

, 70 (2d Cir. 2002). Further, the agency did not

14 err in concluding that the family planning officials’

15 requests for Liu to report for sterilization, their attempt

16 to coerce compliance by ransacking his parents’ home, and

17 the fines, each and collectively, failed to constitute

18 persecution. See

(a)(42) (providing that

19 forced sterilization under a population control program

20 constitutes persecution); Mei Fun Wong v. Holder,

64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept

3 1 that does not include every sort of treatment our society

2 regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted));

3 Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y General,

, 412–13 (2d

4 Cir. 2006) (providing that unfulfilled threats are not

5 persecution).

6 Because Liu did not demonstrate past persecution under

7 the family planning policy, he was not entitled to a

8 presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution. See

9

(b)(1). And Liu does not challenge the

10 agency’s determination that he failed to independently

11 demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution under

12 the family planning policy.

13 Religious Persecution Claim

14 Liu does not allege that he suffered past persecution

15 for his practice of Christianity. Nevertheless, absent past

16 persecution, an alien may still establish eligibility for

17 asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future

18 persecution.

(b)(2); Hongsheng Leng v.

19 Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008). To do so, an

20 applicant must show either a reasonable possibility that he

21 will be singled out for persecution or that the country of

4 1 removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly

2 situated individuals.

(b)(2)(iii);

3 Hongsheng Leng,

. “[A]n alien must make some

4 showing that authorities in his country of nationality are

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

6 his activities.” Hongsheng Leng,

.

7 The agency did not err in finding that Liu failed to

8 establish a well-founded fear of persecution because he did

9 not demonstrate that Chinese officials are aware of or

10 likely to become aware of his religious activities. Liu

11 admitted that Chinese officials do not know about his

12 religious practice. As to whether Chinese officials are

13 likely to discover his religious activities, Liu testified

14 that unspecified individuals would report him to authorities

15 for attending church. Given this limited testimony, the

16 agency did not err in finding that Liu failed to demonstrate

17 a “reasonable possibility” that Chinese officials will

18 discover his practice as required to state a fear of future

19 persecution. Hongsheng Leng,

; see also Jian

20 Xing Huang v. U.S. INS,

(2d Cir. 2005)

21 (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . . [an

5 1 applicant’s] fear is speculative at best.”).

2 The agency also did not err in determining that Liu

3 failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of

4 similarly situated individuals. The IJ acknowledged that

5 the country conditions evidence demonstrated that the

6 Chinese government restricts religious activities and that

7 authorities harass and persecute religious practitioners in

8 some areas of China. As the IJ noted, however, the country

9 conditions evidence also provides that there are millions of

10 Christians in China who practice their religion without

11 government interference. Therefore, the agency did not err

12 in determining that Liu failed to demonstrate “systemic or

13 pervasive” persecution of similarly situated Christians

14 sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of

15 persecution. In re A-M-,

(BIA

16 2005); see also

(b)(2)(iii).

17 Liu’s failure to establish either past harm rising to

18 the level of persecution or a well-founded fear of

19 persecution was dispositive of asylum, withholding of

20 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based

21 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444

, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

3 stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 6 Clerk of Court 7

7