LIN v. WHITAKER (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Huizhen Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 20, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming the April 12, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Huizhen Lin, No. A088 782 781 (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2015), aff’g No. A088 782 781 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “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 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

Lin asserted a fear of future persecution on account of the births of her children in the United States in violation of China’s population control program and her religion.

For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Lin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on her purported violation of China’s population control program. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-72. And the agency did not err in finding that Lin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her religion because she did not submit evidence that Chinese authorities are aware or likely to become aware of her religious practice. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).

The agency’s determination that Lin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not consider the agency’s alternative basis (credibility) for denying relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

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