Filed: Jun. 14, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 09-3437-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A079 630 002 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 TH
Summary: 09-3437-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A079 630 002 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..
More
09-3437-ag
Wang v. Holder
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A079 630 002
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 14 th day of June, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LI ZHENG WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-3437-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Eric Zheng, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Civil Division; William C.
27 Peachey, Assistant Director;
28 Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
1 Litigation, United States Department
2 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Li Zheng Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s
9 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 23, 2009, order of
10 the BIA, affirming the February 3, 2004, decision of
11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert, which denied
12 her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
13 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
14 Li Zheng Wang, No. A079 630 002 (B.I.A. July 23, 2009),
15 aff’g No. A079 630 002 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 3, 2004).
16 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
17 and procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
19 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514
20 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of
21 review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); see
22 also Corovic v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
23 Because Wang has failed to sufficiently argue before
24 this Court that she established past persecution, we deem
2
1 any such argument waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
2 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
3 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
4 eligibility for asylum by showing that she subjectively
5 fears persecution on account of an enumerated ground and
6 that her fear is objectively reasonable. Ramsameachire v.
7 Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). The agency
8 concluded, however, that Wang failed to demonstrate a well-
9 founded fear of future persecution on account of China’s
10 family planning policy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); see
11 also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). That conclusion was reasonably
12 based on the fact that U.S. State Department reports do not
13 demonstrate that women without children, such as Wang, are
14 forced to undergo population control measures that would
15 constitute persecution. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d
16 395, 400 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that State Department
17 Reports may be probative of issues before an I.J).
18 Moreover, in order to constitute persecution, an IUD
19 insertion must occur as a result of the applicant’s
20 resistance to the family planning policy. See Xia Fan Huang
21 v. Holder,
591 F.3d 124, 130 (2d Cir. 2010). Here, Wang
22 failed to show that any threatened insertion of an IUD would
3
1 be on account of her resistance to the family planning
2 policy. Rather, she testified that family planning cadres
3 threatened her because she failed to invite them to her
4 wedding and because they erroneously believed her to have
5 one child. Regardless, Wang was able to avoid further
6 difficulty by paying a fine. Finally, the agency reasonably
7 concluded that Wang could avoid persecution by relocating
8 within China, as her husband had done. See Matter of Acosta
9 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 1985); See also Melgar de
10 Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999).
11 Ultimately, the agency did not err in finding that Wang
12 failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See
13
Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95. Thus, to the extent that Wang’s
14 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
15 relief were based on her family planning claim, the agency
16 properly denied those applications for relief. See Paul v.
17 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); cf. Kyaw Zwar
18 Tun v. INS,
445 F.3d 554, 567 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing
19 that “torture requires proof of something more severe than
20 the kind of treatment that would suffice to prove
21 persecution.”).
22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
23 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4
1 removal that the Court previously granted is VACATED, and
2 any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is
3 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
4 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
5 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
6 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
11
5
