Yuan v. Sessions
This text of Yuan v. Sessions (Yuan v. Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
16-2509 Yuan v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 075 309 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 29th day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MINGCHAI YUAN, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-2509 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Corey T. Lee, New York, NY. 26 27 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Drew C. Brinkman, Trial Attorney, 2 Jamie M. Dowd, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, for Chad A. Readler, 4 Acting Assistant Attorney General, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Petitioner Mingchai Yuan, a native and citizen of the
14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 22, 2016,
15 decision of the BIA affirming a January 22, 2015, decision of
16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yuan’s application for
17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mingchai Yuan, No.
19 A 205 075 309 (B.I.A. June 22, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 075 309
20 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 22, 2015). We assume the parties’
21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
22 in this case.
23 We have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and BIA.
24 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
2 1 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
3 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
4 Because Yuan was not harmed in the past, she had the
5 burden to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future
6 persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2); Dong Zhong Zheng
7 v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277, 284 (2d Cir. 2009); Ramsameachire
8 v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To meet this
9 standard, an applicant must demonstrate that she would be
10 singled out for persecution, or that there is a pattern or
11 practice of persecution of persons similarly situated to her.
12 Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142–43 (2d Cir. 2008)
13 (per curiam); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
14 Yuan alleged a fear of persecution in China based on her
15 imputed religious practice and her actual practice of
16 Christianity in the United States. We have considered Yuan’s
17 arguments regarding the reasonableness of her fear of
18 persecution in China and have found them to be without merit.
19 Therefore, the BIA reasonably concluded that Yuan failed to
20 establish that her fear was objectively reasonable. See Jian
3 1 Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per
2 curiam) (“In the absence of solid support in the
3 record . . . , [petitioner’s] fear is speculative at best.”).
4 Because Yuan failed to establish the objectively
5 reasonable fear of future persecution needed for asylum, she
6 necessarily failed to meet the higher burdens for withholding
7 of removal and CAT relief. Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111,
8 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
11 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
12 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
13 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
14 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
15 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
16 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Yuan v. Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yuan-v-sessions-ca2-2018.