Filed: Mar. 22, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-1468-ag Zheng v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A097 958 474 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: 10-1468-ag Zheng v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A097 958 474 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
10-1468-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A097 958 474
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 22nd day of March, two thousand twelve,
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ______________________________________
13
14 MU REN ZHENG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 10-1468-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: G. Victoria Calle, New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
28 Director; Lisa M. Damiano, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation; U.S. Department of
31 Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Mu Ren Zheng, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of a March 22, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming
7 the May 6, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel
8 Ferris, which denied Zheng’s application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mu Ren Zheng, No. A097 958
11 474 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2010), aff’g No. A097 958 474 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City May 6, 2008). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey,
20
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99,
21 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
22
2
1 As an initial matter, Zheng has waived any challenge to
2 the agency’s determination that he failed to demonstrate a
3 well-founded fear of future persecution or his eligibility
4 for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Yueqing Zhang
5 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
6 Therefore, we consider only whether Zheng demonstrated past
7 persecution based on “other resistance” to China’s family
8 planning policy as required to establish eligibility for
9 asylum.
10 Zheng’s argument that he suffered persecution based on
11 his wife’s forced abortion is unavailing, as “applicants can
12 become candidates for asylum relief only based on
13 persecution that they themselves have suffered or must
14 suffer.” Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
494 F.3d
15 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc). Zheng further asserts
16 that he was persecuted on account of “other resistance” to
17 China’s family planning policy, contending that his actions
18 of conceiving a second child without government
19 authorization and arguing with family planning officials
20 amount to “other resistance.” Although individuals whose
21 spouses were forcibly aborted may be entitled to relief
22 where they demonstrate persecution based on their “other
3
1 resistance to a coercive population control program,” Shao
2 Yan Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 417 F.3d 303, 304 n.1 (2d
3 Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted),
4 merely impregnating one’s spouse is not an act of
5 “resistance,” see, e.g., Shi Liang
Lin, 494 F.3d at 313
6 (citing Ru-Jian Zhang v. Ashcroft,
395 F.3d 531, 532 (5th
7 Cir. 2004)); Matter of S-L-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 1, 11
8 (2006). As to Zheng’s assertion that his argument with the
9 family planning officials constituted “other resistance,”
10 Zheng testified repeatedly that the officials would have
11 arrested him even if he had not argued with them.
12 Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that
13 the argument constituted “other resistance” precipitating
14 any subsequent mistreatment. See Shi Liang
Lin, 494 F.3d at
15 313 (indicating that, to be eligible for asylum, the spouse
16 of a woman who was forcibly aborted must “prove past
17 persecution or a fear of future persecution for ‘resistance’
18 that is directly related to his . . . own opposition to a
19 coercive family planning policy”) (emphasis added). Because
20 the agency reasonably concluded that Zheng failed to
21 demonstrate other resistance, and that finding is
22 dispositive, we need not reach Zheng’s challenge to the
4
1 agency’s finding that his detention did not rise to the
2 level of persecution.
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
5 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
5
