Qiuqun Ni v. Sessions, 697 F. App'x 76

Background

Petitioner Qiuqun Ni, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on alleged membership in the China Democracy Party (CDP) and pro‑democracy activities conducted in the U.S.
Ni asserted Chinese authorities either knew or were likely to learn of her U.S. activities; evidence included her testimony, an unsworn letter from her mother about a police visit in China, participation in protests, and three online articles critical of the Chinese government.
The Immigration Judge denied relief for failure to establish past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
The Second Circuit reviewed both decisions and considered whether Ni showed (1) a reasonable likelihood of being singled out for persecution, or (2) that a pattern or practice of persecution exists against similarly situated CDP members.
The agency found the mother’s letter entitled to limited weight, Ni’s evidence speculative, only two CDP leaders arrested in China were shown, and Ni was not a party leader; thus no individual or group‑based well‑founded fear was established.
The court held the agency reasonably denied asylum and therefore also properly denied withholding of removal and CAT relief (which require higher burdens).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ni showed a well‑founded fear of individual persecution if returned	Ni argued Chinese authorities were aware or likely to learn of her CDP/pro‑democracy activities (mother’s letter, protests, online posts)	Government argued record lacked reliable evidence authorities knew or would learn of Ni’s activities; mother’s letter unsworn and of limited weight; Ni’s claims speculative	Denied — agency reasonably found no reliable evidence authorities were aware; fear was speculative
Whether Ni showed a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly‑situated CDP members in China	Ni relied on arrests of CDP members to show systemic persecution	Government argued evidence showed only isolated arrests of two CDP leaders and did not demonstrate pervasive, systemic harm to similarly situated low‑level members	Denied — agency reasonably found no pattern or practice shown
Whether Ni failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence	Ni contended denial was based on lack of corroboration	Government maintained denial rested on failure to meet the substantive burden of proof, not solely on missing corroboration	Denied — court agreed agency denied asylum for failure to meet burden, not solely for lack of corroboration
Whether denial of asylum also precludes withholding of removal and CAT relief	Ni sought withholding/CAT relief if asylum unavailable	Government argued higher burdens for withholding/CAT not met given asylum denial	Denied — asylum denial dispositive; higher standards unmet

Key Cases Cited

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review and asylum law principles)
Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2009) (well‑founded fear is subjective fear that is objectively reasonable)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (requirements for well‑founded fear and pattern or practice analysis)
Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (speculative fear insufficient without solid record support)
Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (need to show authorities are or will become aware of applicant’s activities)
Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007) (pattern or practice requires systemic or pervasive harm)