Filed: Dec. 15, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED No. 10-11785 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Non-Argument Calendar ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEMBER 15, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK Agency No. A095-708-727 ZI GUO ZHENG, a.k.a Chung Sing Ip, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ (December 15, 2010) Before BARKETT, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Zi Guo Zheng, a Chinese citizen
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED No. 10-11785 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Non-Argument Calendar ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEMBER 15, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK Agency No. A095-708-727 ZI GUO ZHENG, a.k.a Chung Sing Ip, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ (December 15, 2010) Before BARKETT, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Zi Guo Zheng, a Chinese citizen ..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 10-11785 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Non-Argument Calendar ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 15, 2010
________________________
JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A095-708-727
ZI GUO ZHENG,
a.k.a Chung Sing Ip,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(December 15, 2010)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Zi Guo Zheng, a Chinese citizen and native, seeks review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial
of Zheng’s request for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), and withholding of removal under the INA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The IJ denied relief on the basis of an adverse credibility
determination and lack of corroborating evidence. Zheng challenges the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination and findings that he is ineligible for asylum and
withholding of removal. After thorough review, we deny the petition.
“We review only the [BIA]’s decision, except to the extent that [the BIA]
expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion” or reasoning. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d
1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “Insofar as the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we
review the IJ’s decision as well.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
463 F.3d 1228, 1230
(11th Cir. 2006). This Court reviews for substantial evidence the factual findings
of the BIA or IJ.
Id. at 1230–31. Factual findings, including credibility
determinations, “can be reversed only if the evidence compels a reasonable fact
finder to find otherwise.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1230
(11th Cir. 2005). This Court reviews de novo questions of law. Nreka v. U.S.
Att’y Gen.,
408 F.3d 1361, 1368 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
I.
Zheng argues that he is eligible for asylum because he was detained and
fined in China for violating family planning laws. He also argues that he is
eligible because he fears future persecution based on this violation and on his
unauthorized religious practices. “To be eligible for asylum, the applicant bears
the burden of proving statutory refugee status.” Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231 (quotation
marks omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “[T]he alien must, with specific and
credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; or (2)
well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily-protected
ground.”
Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231; see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b).
An IJ’s denial of asylum can be supported solely by an adverse credibility
determination. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir.
2005). In the absence of corroborating evidence, the asylum applicant must satisfy
the trier of fact that his testimony is credible and persuasive. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). “[The] trier of fact may base a credibility determination on
the . . . inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account [or] the consistency
between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . .” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Our review of an IJ’s credibility determination is “highly
3
deferential.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1230. After the IJ provides “specific, cogent
reasons for the finding,” the burden shifts to the alien to prove that the decision is
not supported by either specific, cogent reasons or substantial evidence.
Chen,
463 F.3d at 1231.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Zheng is ineligible
for asylum. As the IJ concluded, inconsistencies in Zheng’s story undermine his
credibility. For instance, Zheng told the asylum officer that he had no relatives
who were United States lawful permanent residents. Yet, a lawful permanent
resident who claimed to be Zheng’s sister submitted an affidavit in support of his
asylum application. Additionally, Zheng’s testimony as to when he and his
girlfriend conceived a child was contradictory. The record is replete with other
inconsistencies in Zheng’s representations.
We also cannot say that the record compels a finding that Zheng was
persecuted. Zheng alleged that the Chinese authorities detained him for two days
and imposed a monetary fine when they learned that Zheng’s girlfriend had given
birth to his child. We have held that an isolated brief detention does not amount to
persecution, even when coupled with minor physical abuse. See Kazemzadeh v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1353 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding no persecution
where alien was arrested, interrogated and beaten for five hours, detained for four
4
days, and monitored post-release); Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168,
1171–72, 1175 (11th Cir. 2008) (finding no persecution where alien was detained
for thirty-six hours, kicked and beaten with a belt). Further, Zheng never alleged
that he suffered from past persecution for his unauthorized religious practices.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Zheng did not
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Zheng himself did not know
many details about the Chinese authorities’ knowledge of his unauthorized
religious practices or whether they currently seek to punish him for his past
religious activities. Although Zheng was briefly detained in China for violating
the family planning laws, he had no evidence that the authorities planned to
impose additional punishment for the same violation upon his return. Therefore,
Zheng failed to prove that he is eligible for asylum.
II.
Zheng next argues that the IJ erred in concluding that he is not entitled to
withholding of removal under the INA or CAT. The INA prohibits removal to a
particular country if “the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that
country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). To be
eligible for withholding of removal under the CAT, an alien must show that “it is
5
more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1303 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)
(2001)). The burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than that for
asylum claims.
Id.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s determinations that Zheng
is not entitled to withholding of removal. Zheng argues that the Chinese
authorities have threatened to arrest or injure him upon his return for his past
unauthorized religious practices. A mere threat without more, however, does not
rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g.,
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (finding no
persecution despite menacing phone calls and threats coupled with bombing at
restaurant where alien worked).
Further, Zheng has failed to provide corroborating proof of a threat to his
life or freedom based on his religious practices or violation of China’s family
planning laws. The relatively lax enforcement policy in the region of China where
Zheng resides undermines his claim that his return would endanger him. For
example, several reports the IJ reviewed reflect that this region punishes violators
of China’s family planning laws primarily through monetary fines. Moreover,
Zheng’s claim that he fears for his life or freedom is belied by the fact that he did
not try to seek asylum in the three other countries he fled to before arriving in the
6
United States. Nor did Zheng seek asylum in the United States until after he was
questioned by the government for entering the country using a forged passport.
Therefore, the IJ and BIA properly denied Zheng relief because he did not satisfy
the more-likely-than-not standard for withholding of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
7
