
    DAOMIN MYN SHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-2199-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 5, 2012.
    
      Charles Christophe, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; Dalin R. Holyoak, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Daomin Myn Shi, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 21, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the June 12, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Daomin Myn Shi, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 21, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 12, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision, and, because the BIA assumed Shi’s credibility, we do the same. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Shi did not establish a likelihood of persecution or torture if returned to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). First, the IJ noted that the country condition reports that Shi submitted suggested that while underground churches were interfered with by the government, treatment varied greatly in different areas, and in some localities the churches were tolerated. Second, the agency determined that these same reports indicated that the Chinese government’s harassment of underground church members was, for the most part, limited to leaders of those churches. As Shi admitted that he was not, and had never been, a leader of any church, either in the United States or in China, the agency reasonably found that Shi’s “mere association” with an underground church was not enough to establish that he would be persecuted in China. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir.2006). Finally, the BIA found that even if Shi testified credibly during his merits hearing, the events to which he testified, where he was never arrested, detained or physically mistreated, did not establish a likelihood that he would be persecuted if he returned to China. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006). Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Shi failed to establish a clear probability of persecution based on his membership in an underground Christian church. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005).

Shi accurately notes that the BIA erred in finding that he “admitted that his parents are practicing Christians who have remained unharmed in China for many years.” The BIA clearly erred in this finding, as there is no evidence in the record to support it. On the other hand, as the IJ found, Shi made no showing that his family had experienced any difficulty in the years since he had remained in China. [JA 20] We are “not required to remand where there is no realistic possibility that, absent the errors, the IJ or BIA would have reached a different conclusion.” Alam v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although Shi states that “he will likely suffer torture if forced to return to China,” he presents no argument or evidence supporting this claim, other than a general statement that it is “because of his religious beliefs and practice.” As the BIA concluded, Shi “failed to demonstrate with sufficient objective evidence that he more likely than not would be subject to abuse amounting to torture” if he were to return to China. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a); Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir.2005).

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