Opinion
No. 08-0037-ag NAC.
November 25, 2008.
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.
FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York. FOR RESPONDENTS: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Briena L. Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
PRESENT: HON. JON O. NEWMAN, HON. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, HON. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Xue Xin Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a December 13, 2007 order of the BIA affirming the February 9, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Barbara A. Nelson denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Xue Xin Lin, No. A98 594 043 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2007), aff'g No. A98 594 043 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 9, 2006). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and supplements the IJ's decision, this Court reviews the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). This Court reviews the agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court reviews de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact, including what quantum of evidence will suffice to carry the applicant's burden of proof. See, e.g., Islami v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 391, 396 (2d. Cir 2005).
Here, the record supports the agency's determination that Lin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The agency properly determined that Lin's fear of future persecution was objectively unreasonable given the fact that his family continued to practice Roman Catholicism without incident in the same underground church that Lin had attended in China.See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that the experience of similarly-situated friends and family is relevant to an applicant's well-founded fear); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 212 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding that where the asylum applicant's mother and daughters continued to live in petitioner's native country, claim of well-founded fear of persecution was diminished). As to Lin's pattern or practice claim, the agency found that, although the evidence indicated that some individuals were persecuted for their Catholic faith, Lin failed to demonstrate a pattern or practice of such persecution. We are not compelled to conclude to the contrary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, the agency's denial of asylum was proper. Lin has waived any challenge to the agency's denial of his application for withholding of removal and CAT relief.See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n. 1.
Lin does not challenge the agency's finding that he did not establish past persecution. Thus, we deem such challenge waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005). Similarly, Lin has waived any claim based on his alleged illegal departure from China. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. The pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED.