Jiang v. Whitaker

Opinion

16-162 Jiang v. Whitaker BIA

Sichel, IJ

A095 369 552

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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 18th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNIS JACOBS, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 XIU MEI JIANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-162 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28 Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Allison

2

1 Frayer, 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 Xiu Mei Jiang, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 23, 12 2015, BIA decision that affirmed the May 1, 2014, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Xiu Mei Jiang, No. A095 369 552 (B.I.A. Dec. 16 23, 2015), aff’g No. A095 369 552 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17 1, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s 20 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 22 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 23 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 24 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

3

1 Jiang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and 2 CAT relief, asserting that she suffered past persecution when 3 family planning officials fired her from her village 4 brigade and threatened to punish her for helping a friend 5 evade a forced abortion in 2000 and that she fears 6 persecution on account of this resistance to the family 7 planning policy. Because Jiang did not show that she 8 suffered a substantial economic disadvantage from being 9 fired as required for an economic persecution claim and did 10 not suffer any harm from the one unfulfilled threat of 11 punishment, the agency did not err in finding that she 12 failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Guan Shan Liao 13 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 14 (providing that economic persecution requires that “an 15 asylum applicant . . . offer some proof that [s]he suffered 16 a deliberate imposition of substantial economic 17 disadvantage” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gui Ci 18 Pan v. U.S. Att’y General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir. 19 2006) (providing that unfulfilled threats are not 20 persecution); see also Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 21 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (“We have emphasized that persecution is 22 an extreme concept that does not include every sort of

4

1 treatment our society regards as offensive.” (internal 2 quotation marks omitted)). The agency also did not err in 3 finding that Jiang failed to establish a well-founded fear 4 of persecution on account of her resistance to the family 5 planning policy because she did not provide any evidence 6 that officials remain interested in her since threatening 7 to punish her in 2000 or that officials punish people who 8 help others evade the family planning policy in a manner 9 that rises to the level of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. 10 § 1208.13(b)(2)(i)(B) (requiring applicant to demonstrate 11 “a reasonable possibility of suffering . . . persecution if 12 he or she were to return to [her] country”). 13 Jiang further asserted a fear of forced sterilization 14 based on the birth of her children in the United States in 15 violation of China’s population control program. For largely 16 the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no 17 error in the agency’s determination that Jiang failed to 18 satisfy her burden for asylum, withholding of removal, and 19 CAT relief based on her family planning claim. 546 F.3d at 20 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d 21 Cir. 2006).

5

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