Filed: Sep. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 08-5677-ag Jiang v. Holder BIA Montante, IJ A078 203 445 A078 203 446 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 DATA
Summary: 08-5677-ag Jiang v. Holder BIA Montante, IJ A078 203 445 A078 203 446 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 DATAB..
More
08-5677-ag
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
Montante, IJ
A078 203 445
A078 203 446
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 27 th day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 DENNY CHIN,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 ZHENGRONG JIANG, HANG JIANG
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 08-5677-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., * UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Jisheng Li, Honolulu, Hawaii.
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1
2 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
3 General; Barry J. Pettinato,
4 Assistant Director; Kristen
5 Giuffreda Chapman, Trial Attorney,
6 Office of Immigration Litigation,
7 United States Department of Justice,
8 Washington, D.C.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Zhengrong Jiang and Hang Jiang (“the Jiangs”), natives
15 and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review
16 of a November 5, 2008, order of the BIA affirming the
17 November 7, 2002, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
18 Philip J. Montante, Jr., which denied their application for
19 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
20 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhengrong Jiang,
21 Hang Jiang, Nos. A078 203 445/446 (B.I.A. Nov. 5, 2008),
22 aff’g Nos. A078 203 445/446 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Nov. 7,
23 2002). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
24 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
25 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
26 BIA’s decision alone. See Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d
27 619, 623 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards of review
2
1 are well-established. U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
2 Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d
3 Cir. 2007).
4 In a prior order issued pursuant to joint stipulation,
5 we instructed the agency to analyze the Jiangs’ economic
6 persecution claim and their claim that they faced future
7 persecution based on having two U.S.-citizen children .
8 I. Economic Persecution
9 The Jiangs argued that the 6,000 RMB fine levied
10 against them for violating the family planning policy was
11 “eight times” their monthly salary. The BIA determined that
12 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they
13 suffered economic deprivation of such a deliberate and
14 severe nature so as to constitute past persecution. This was
15 not error, as the Jiangs provided no other information–-such
16 as information regarding savings, net worth, or other
17 financial resources–-that would have made it possible to
18 evaluate their ability to pay the fine. See Guan Shan Liao
19 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
293 F.3d 61, 69-70 (2d Cir.
20 2002)(requiring claims of economic persecution to be
21 supported by evidence or testimony concerning the relative
22 impact of the economic harm on the asylum applicants, given
3
1 their income, assets, and ability to earn a living through
2 alternative means); Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163,
3 170-71 (BIA 2007) (emphasizing that economic harm must be
4 “severe,” such that it would “constitute a threat to an
5 individual’s life or freedom”).
6 II. Well-Founded Fear Based on Having Two U.S.-Citizen
7 Children
8 Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding
9 that the Jiangs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating
10 a well-founded fear of being forcibly sterilized in China
11 based on the birth of their two U.S.-citizen children.
12 Indeed, this argument is largely foreclosed by our decision
13 in Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) . The Jiangs
14 argue that the agency failed to consider adequately the
15 “individualized” and “unique” evidence they presented.
16 However, we “presume that [the agency] has taken into
17 account all of the evidence before [it], unless the record
18 compellingly suggests otherwise.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t
19 of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006). The
20 Jiangs advance no argument that would compel the conclusion
21 that the BIA ignored any of the evidence they submitted. See
22
id.
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. Any stay of removal that the Court previously
3 granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
4 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
5 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
6 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
7 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11
5
