Case Information
*1 16-4089 Wang v. Sessions BIA
Christensen, IJ A206 288 118 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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28 th day of November, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT:
JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
ROBERT D. SACK,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
ZEDONG WANG, AKA CHENYANG WANG,
Petitioner ,
v. 16-4089
NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent .
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Nataliya I. Gavlin, Gavlin & Associates,
P.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Jonathan A. Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel; Tracey N. McDonald, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Zedong Wang, a native and сitizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 9, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming a February 17, 2016 decision of аn Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zedong Wang, No. A206 288 118 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2016), aff’g No. A206 288 118 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 17, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying fаcts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
decision of the IJ as supplеmented by the BIA.
See Yan Chen v.
Gonzales
,
§ 1252(b)(4)(B);
see also Chuilu Liu v. Holder
,
Absent past persecution, an alien may establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To demonstrate a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either a reasonable possibility that he would be singled out for рersecution or that the country of removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting individuals similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). Furthermore, “an alien must make some
showing that authorities in his country of nationality are
either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his
activities.”
Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey
,
In this case, it was reasonable for the agency to require
corroboration of Wang’s testimony. Although Wang alleged that
*4
Chinese police detained and beat his grandparents when they
discovered his proselytizing to them, Wang’s testimony was
inconsistent with evidence he submitted to prove that a friend
paid a fine to secure his grandparents’ release. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that
the applicant should provide evidence . . . , such evidence must
be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidencе and
cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”);
see also Chuilu Liu
,
The agency did not err in concluding that Wang failed to provide reasоnably available evidence to corroborate his grandparents’ detention or his proselytizing over the internet. Wang’s fathеr lives in New York and purportedly reimbursed the family friend who paid to secure Wang’s grandparents’ release, but Wang did not proffer еither his father’s testimony or an affidavit from his father. See id. at 198 (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from the IJ.”). Furthermore, although Wang testified that he had a registered account with the video chat service that he used to prosеlytize his grandparents and their neighbors, he did not submit evidence of that account. See id. at 198-99.
Other than the fine receipt, as to which the proof of
mailing undermined Wang’s credibility because it post-dated the
receipt’s submission into evidence, Wang’s only evidence to
сorroborate his assertion that Chinese police had become aware
of his religious practice were letters from his grandfather and
the family friend who purportedly secured his grandparents’
release.
See Hongsheng Leng
,
Furthermore, the IJ did not err in determining that the country conditions evidence failed to establish a pattern or *6 practice of persecution of similarly situated individuals such that Wang’s fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. Thе country conditions evidence provided reflects that tens of millions of individuals practice Christianity in unregistered churches in China, and that in some areas unsanctioned religious practices are tolerated without interference. Therefore, despite evidence of the destruction of churches and the arrests of religious leaders and practitioners in certain regions, Wang failed to demonstrate “systemic or pervasive” persecution of similarly situated Christians sufficient to demonstrate a pаttern or practice of persecution in China. In re A-M- , 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii);
Santoso v. Holder
,
Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Wang
failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of his religious practice.
See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B);
Chuilu Liu
,
We further conclude that the BIA did not err in declining to consider the additional evidence Wang submitted to the agеncy for the first time on appeal. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(ii)(3)(iv); Matter of Fedorenko , 19 I. & N. Dec. 57, 74 (B.I.A. 1984) (recognizing that, as appellate body, BIA may decline to review evidence proffered for first time on appeal).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and the pending motion for a stay of removal in this pеtition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk