XIU MEI JIANG v. WHITAKER (2018)

Petitioner Xiu Mei Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 23, 2015, BIA decision that affirmed the May 1, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiu Mei Jiang, No. A095 369 552 (B.I.A. Dec. 23, 2015), aff’g No. A095 369 552 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 1, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

Jiang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, asserting that she suffered past persecution when family planning officials fired her from her village brigade and threatened to punish her for helping a friend evade a forced abortion in 2000 and that she fears persecution on account of this resistance to the family planning policy. Because Jiang did not show that she suffered a substantial economic disadvantage from being fired as required for an economic persecution claim and did not suffer any harm from the one unfulfilled threat of punishment, the agency did not err in finding that she failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002) (providing that economic persecution requires that “an asylum applicant ․ offer some proof that [s]he suffered a deliberate imposition of substantial economic disadvantage” (internal quotation marks omitted) ); Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2006) (providing that unfulfilled threats are not persecution); see also Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (“We have emphasized that persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ). The agency also did not err in finding that Jiang failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her resistance to the family planning policy because she did not provide any evidence that officials remain interested in her since threatening to punish her in 2000 or that officials punish people who help others evade the family planning policy in a manner that rises to the level of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i)(B) (requiring applicant to demonstrate “a reasonable possibility of suffering ․ persecution if he or she were to return to [her] country”).

Jiang further asserted a fear of forced sterilization based on the birth of her children in the United States in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Jiang failed to satisfy her burden for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on her family planning claim. 546 F.3d at 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.