Filed: May 16, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-3305-ag Zheng v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A073 186 973 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE
Summary: 11-3305-ag Zheng v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A073 186 973 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE N..
More
11-3305-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A073 186 973
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 16th day of May, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YI XI ZHENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-3305-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Feng Li, Moslemi and Associates,
24 Inc., New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Carl H. McIntyre, Jr.,
28 Assistant Director; Enitan O.
29 Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
7 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
8 review is DENIED.
9 Yi Xi Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 29, 2011, decision
11 of the BIA affirming the June 16, 2009, decision of
12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, denying his
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yi Xi
15 Zheng, No. A073 186 973 (B.I.A. July 29, 2011), aff’g No.
16 A073 186 973 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 16, 2009). We
17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history of this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
20 the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d
21 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review
22 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Aliyev
23 v. Mukasey,
549 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 2008).
24
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
2 conclusion that Zheng was not eligible for asylum solely on
3 the basis of his wife’s forced sterilization. See Shi Liang
4 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-310 (2d Cir.
5 2007). Nevertheless, even though Zheng was not per se
6 eligible for asylum based on his wife’s forced
7 sterilization, he could still qualify for relief by
8 demonstrating that: (1) he engaged in “other resistance” to
9 the family planning policy; and (2) he suffered harm rising
10 to the level of persecution or has a well-founded fear of
11 suffering such harm as a direct result of his resistance.
12 See id. at 313; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Matter of
13 J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520, 523 (A.G. 2008).
14 The agency assumed that Zheng had engaged in resistance
15 to China’s family planning policy, and reasonably determined
16 that he did not establish that he suffered harm rising to
17 the level of persecution on account of that resistance,
18 because he did not allege that he personally suffered any
19 emotional, physical, or economic harm arising from the
20 unfortunate incidents involving family planning officials.
21 See Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 309 (holding that “an
22 individual whose spouse undergoes . . . a forced abortion or
3
1 involuntary sterilization may suffer a profound emotional
2 loss,” but that “an individual does not automatically
3 qualify for ‘refugee’ status on account of a coercive
4 procedure performed on someone else”) (emphasis added); see
5 also Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011)
6 (emphasizing that “persecution is an extreme concept that
7 does not include every sort of treatment our society regards
8 as offensive”) (internal quotation marks and citations
9 omitted). Additionally, the agency did not err in
10 concluding that Zheng failed to demonstrate that his fear of
11 future persecution was objectively reasonable because he
12 admitted that he had lived unharmed in China for more than
13 six years and that his wife had lived unharmed in China for
14 twenty-two years after his confrontation with family
15 planning officials, his wife’s forced sterilization, and
16 their refusal to pay a family planning fine. See
17 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); see also Melgar de Torres v. Reno,
18
191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that when asylum
19 applicant’s mother and daughters continued to live in
20 petitioner’s native country, claim of well-founded fear was
21 weakened). Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found
22 that Zheng failed to demonstrate either past persecution or
23 a well-founded fear of persecution, it did not err in
4
1 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief as
2 those claims were based on the same factual predicate. See
3 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
