19-3424 Lin v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A056 063 001 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 15th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JING LIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3424 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: John Son Yong, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, 28 Assistant Director; Elizabeth K. 1 Fitzgerald-Sambou, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC.

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Jing Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s

10 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 26, 2019

11 decision of the BIA affirming a May 28, 2019 decision of an

12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for

13 deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture

14 (“CAT”). In re Jing Lin, No. A 056 063 001 (B.I.A. Sept. 26,

15 2019), aff’g No. A 056 063 001 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 28,

16 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

17 facts and procedural history.

18 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See

19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

(2d

20 Cir. 2006). We review factual challenges to the agency’s

21 denial of CAT protection under the substantial-evidence

22 standard. See Nasrallah v. Barr,

, 1692

23 (2020). An applicant for CAT relief has the burden to show 2 1 that he would “more likely than not” be tortured by or with

2 the acquiescence of government officials. See 8 C.F.R.

3 §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.17(a); see also Khouzam v. Ashcroft,

4

, 170–71 (2d Cir. 2004).

5 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that

6 Lin failed to show he would “more likely than not” be tortured

7 if removed to China. Lin argued the Chinese government would

8 prosecute, detain, and potentially use the death penalty

9 against him because he was convicted of a controlled substance

10 offense in the United States. He offered evidence of China’s

11 severe punishment for drug offenses committed in China,

12 including its use of the death penalty. However, as his

13 counsel conceded before the IJ, none of the evidence discussed

14 punishment in China for individuals prosecuted for drug

15 offenses outside of China. Lin admitted that he did not know

16 whether Chinese law provided punishment for people returning

17 to China with foreign drug convictions or if the Chinese

18 government was aware of his conviction. Absent evidence of

19 torture of individuals with convictions from outside of

20 China, the agency reasonably deemed Lin’s claim speculative

21 and denied CAT relief. See Savchuck v. Mukasey,

1 119, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (“An alien will never be able to show

2 that he faces a more likely than not chance of torture if one

3 link in the chain cannot be shown to be more likely than not

4 to occur. It is the likelihood of all necessary events coming

5 together that must more likely than not lead to torture, and

6 a chain of events cannot be more likely than its least likely

7 link.” (quoting In re J-F-F-,

, 918 n.4

8 (AG 2006)).

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

10 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

11 stays VACATED.

12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 14 Clerk of Court

4