XUE JIN YANG v. WHITAKER (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Xue Jin Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 5, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming the May 12, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying her motion to remand. In re Xue Jin Yang, No. A099 682 881 (B.I.A. Nov. 5, 2014), aff’g No. A099 682 881 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 12, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2005).

Yang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, asserting a fear of persecution 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 this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Yang failed to satisfy her burden for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 546 F.3d at 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

As to Yang’s motion to remand based on her religious practice in the United States, the BIA did not err in finding that she failed to demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for relief because she did not submit evidence that Chinese authorities are aware or likely to become aware of her religious practice. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168; see also Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).

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