17-43 (L) Ren v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A205 894 915 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 21st day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WEI LIANG REN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-43 (L), 17 17-2566 (Con) 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Zhong Yue Zhang, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jeffery R. 28 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Abigail E. Leach, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
4 are DENIED.
5 Petitioner Wei Liang Ren, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 12,
7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a June 7, 2016, decision
8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ren’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Liang Ren, No.
11 A 205 894 915 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 894 915
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 7, 2016). Ren also seeks review
13 of an August 11, 2017, decision of the BIA denying his motion
14 to reopen. In re Wei Liang Ren, No. A 205 894 915 (B.I.A.
15 Aug. 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.
18 See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
19 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23,
21 27 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing factual findings for substantial
22 evidence and questions of law and the application of law to
2 1 undisputed facts de novo); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
2 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing the BIA’s denial of a
3 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and its country
4 conditions determination for substantial evidence).
5 Ren applied for asylum based on his membership and
6 participation in the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) while in
7 the United States and moved to reopen his proceedings based
8 on his practice of Christianity in the United States. We
9 address the denial of each claim in turn and find no error in
10 the agency’s decisions because the agency balanced relevant
11 factors: the likelihood that the Chinese government is aware
12 of Ren’s U.S. activities, evidence suggesting that he would
13 be targeted if returned to China, and practical concerns,
14 including the fact that Ren commenced both his political
15 activities and his practice of Christianity after he came to
16 the United States. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 325, 338 (2d
17 Cir. 2013).
18 CDP Claim
19 Ren had the burden of proving a well-founded fear of
20 persecution on account of his political activity. See 8
21 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2). To
22 do this, he was required to show that he subjectively feared
3 1 persecution and that his fear was objectively reasonable.
2 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004);
3 Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
4 (“In the absence of solid support in the record,” an asylum
5 applicant’s fear of persecution is “speculative at best”).
6 He had to show either a “reasonable possibility that he . .
7 . would be singled out individually for persecution,” or that
8 there is a “pattern or practice” of persecution of “persons
9 similarly situated” to him. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii);
10 see also Y.C., 741 F.3d at 332. When as here an applicant
11 applies for “relief based exclusively on activities
12 undertaken after his arrival in the United States, [he] must
13 make some showing that authorities in his country of
14 nationality are (1) aware of his activities or (2) likely to
15 become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
16 528 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir. 2008).
17 The agency reasonably determined that Ren’s testimony,
18 (sparse) documentary evidence, and the background evidence on
19 China did not establish that the Chinese government was or
20 would likely become aware of his activities. Ren’s evidence
21 of the government’s awareness of his activities in the United
22 States consisted solely of a letter from his wife. The agency
4 1 was not required to credit Ren’s wife’s statement. See Y.C.,
2 741 F.3d at 334 (affirming agency’s determination that letter
3 from spouse in China—stating that he had been visited by
4 police who were aware of applicant’s prodemocracy activities
5 in the United States—was entitled to limited weight because
6 it was unsworn and submitted by an interested witness).
7 Moreover, the country conditions evidence did not support
8 Ren’s fear. Ren submitted the State Department report for
9 2014, which shows that China detains and mistreats political
10 dissidents who are active in China. The report, however, did
11 not identify any targeting of individuals who had engaged in
12 prodemocracy activism in the United States. Accordingly, the
13 agency did not err in concluding that Ren failed to establish
14 a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Jian Xing
15 Huang, 421 F.3d at 129; Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178.
16 Because Ren failed to carry his burden of proof for asylum,
17 he necessarily failed to sustain the higher burdens for
18 withholding of removal and CAT relief. Y.C., 741 F.3d at
19 335.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
17-43 (L) Ren v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A205 894 915 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 21st day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WEI LIANG REN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-43 (L), 17 17-2566 (Con) 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Zhong Yue Zhang, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jeffery R. 28 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Abigail E. Leach, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
4 are DENIED.
5 Petitioner Wei Liang Ren, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 12,
7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a June 7, 2016, decision
8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ren’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Liang Ren, No.
11 A 205 894 915 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 894 915
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 7, 2016). Ren also seeks review
13 of an August 11, 2017, decision of the BIA denying his motion
14 to reopen. In re Wei Liang Ren, No. A 205 894 915 (B.I.A.
15 Aug. 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.
18 See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
19 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23,
21 27 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing factual findings for substantial
22 evidence and questions of law and the application of law to
2 1 undisputed facts de novo); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
2 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing the BIA’s denial of a
3 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and its country
4 conditions determination for substantial evidence).
5 Ren applied for asylum based on his membership and
6 participation in the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) while in
7 the United States and moved to reopen his proceedings based
8 on his practice of Christianity in the United States. We
9 address the denial of each claim in turn and find no error in
10 the agency’s decisions because the agency balanced relevant
11 factors: the likelihood that the Chinese government is aware
12 of Ren’s U.S. activities, evidence suggesting that he would
13 be targeted if returned to China, and practical concerns,
14 including the fact that Ren commenced both his political
15 activities and his practice of Christianity after he came to
16 the United States. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 325, 338 (2d
17 Cir. 2013).
18 CDP Claim
19 Ren had the burden of proving a well-founded fear of
20 persecution on account of his political activity. See 8
21 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2). To
22 do this, he was required to show that he subjectively feared
3 1 persecution and that his fear was objectively reasonable.
2 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004);
3 Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
4 (“In the absence of solid support in the record,” an asylum
5 applicant’s fear of persecution is “speculative at best”).
6 He had to show either a “reasonable possibility that he . .
7 . would be singled out individually for persecution,” or that
8 there is a “pattern or practice” of persecution of “persons
9 similarly situated” to him. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii);
10 see also Y.C., 741 F.3d at 332. When as here an applicant
11 applies for “relief based exclusively on activities
12 undertaken after his arrival in the United States, [he] must
13 make some showing that authorities in his country of
14 nationality are (1) aware of his activities or (2) likely to
15 become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
16 528 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir. 2008).
17 The agency reasonably determined that Ren’s testimony,
18 (sparse) documentary evidence, and the background evidence on
19 China did not establish that the Chinese government was or
20 would likely become aware of his activities. Ren’s evidence
21 of the government’s awareness of his activities in the United
22 States consisted solely of a letter from his wife. The agency
4 1 was not required to credit Ren’s wife’s statement. See Y.C.,
2 741 F.3d at 334 (affirming agency’s determination that letter
3 from spouse in China—stating that he had been visited by
4 police who were aware of applicant’s prodemocracy activities
5 in the United States—was entitled to limited weight because
6 it was unsworn and submitted by an interested witness).
7 Moreover, the country conditions evidence did not support
8 Ren’s fear. Ren submitted the State Department report for
9 2014, which shows that China detains and mistreats political
10 dissidents who are active in China. The report, however, did
11 not identify any targeting of individuals who had engaged in
12 prodemocracy activism in the United States. Accordingly, the
13 agency did not err in concluding that Ren failed to establish
14 a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Jian Xing
15 Huang, 421 F.3d at 129; Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178.
16 Because Ren failed to carry his burden of proof for asylum,
17 he necessarily failed to sustain the higher burdens for
18 withholding of removal and CAT relief. Y.C., 741 F.3d at
19 335.
20 Motion to Reopen: Christianity Claim
21 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ren’s
22 motion to reopen because, as with his CDP claim, Ren commenced
5 1 his practice of Christianity after his arrival in the United
2 States and did not submit persuasive evidence showing that
3 Chinese government officials “are (1) aware of his
4 [religious] activities or (2) likely to become aware of his
5 activities.” Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 138; see also INS
6 v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (reasoning that movant’s
7 failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying
8 substantive relief sought is a proper ground on which the BIA
9 may deny a motion to reopen). Ren’s evidence of the Chinese
10 government’s awareness was again a letter from his wife. The
11 BIA was not required to credit that letter. See Y.C., 741
12 F.3d at 332-34. Moreover, the country conditions reports do
13 not demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution or
14 torture of ordinary churchgoing Christians in Ren’s home city
15 of Tianjin. The reports reveal targeting of religious
16 leaders, elders, and businesspeople and surveilled
17 underground church members, but they do not reflect
18 persecution or torture of ordinary churchgoers like Ren. See
19 Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142. Accordingly, Ren
20 demonstrated neither that Chinese officials are aware or
21 likely to become aware of his U.S. practice of Christianity
22 (and would therefore single him out individually for
6 1 persecution) nor that there was a pattern or practice of
2 persecution of similarly situated Christians in Tianjin. See
3 Y.C., 741 F.3d at 332-34.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
6 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
7 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
8 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
9 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
10 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
11 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 14 Clerk of Court