Xue Ying Lin v. Lynch, 661 F. App'x 105

Petitioner Xue Ying Lin, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming fear of persecution for practicing Christianity in China.
An Immigration Judge denied relief; the BIA affirmed. Lin petitioned the Second Circuit for review of the BIA decision.
Lin planned to attend a small underground (house) church in China; she was not a church leader and did not claim she would engage in pro-democracy activities if returned.
Country-conditions evidence (including State Department reports) indicated that small house churches generally meet at home without registration and do not usually encounter problems; some reports noted detentions/harassment of larger house churches or pastors.
Lin pointed to prior run-ins with authorities from past pro-democracy activities as a basis for individualized risk, but she had not been arrested or detained and did not claim future political activity.
The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and denied the petition for review, concluding Lin failed to show either a pattern-or-practice risk or individualized risk of persecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is a pattern or practice of persecution of house‑church Christians in China	Lin: small house‑church members face systemic or pervasive persecution	Gov: country evidence shows small house churches generally can meet without government problems	Held: No pattern or practice; evidence shows small house churches "do not generally encounter problems"
Whether Lin faces individualized risk of persecution if returned	Lin: her past run‑ins with authorities and prospective church attendance create a well‑founded fear	Gov: Lin is neither a leader nor likely to be targeted; reports of detentions concern larger congregations/pastors, not members of small house churches	Held: No individualized risk shown; fear speculative and not supported by record
Whether Lin’s past pro‑democracy incidents place her outside ordinary house‑church group	Lin: prior incidents increase her personal risk beyond that of ordinary congregants	Gov: Lin did not claim future political activity and presented no evidence of arrests/detentions; BIA not required to infer heightened risk	Held: Past run‑ins insufficient—Lin did not claim future political acts and presented no evidence of detention; agency reasonably discounted it

Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (framework for asylum: individual targeting or pattern-or-practice showing)
Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming no pattern-or-practice where evidence showed religious practice generally permitted)
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (IJ has discretion to weigh evidentiary record)
Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (fear of persecution must be supported by solid record evidence; speculative fears insufficient)
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (failure to meet asylum burden necessarily precludes withholding of removal)
Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007) (to establish pattern-or-practice harm must show persecution is systemic or pervasive)