Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 12-327 Zheng v. Holder BIA Cheng, IJ A095 708 510 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 NOTAT
Summary: 12-327 Zheng v. Holder BIA Cheng, IJ A095 708 510 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 NOTATI..
More
12-327
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A095 708 510
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 4th day of June, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YOU HUI ZHENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-327
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
27 Assistant Director; Allison Frayer,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of 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 You Hui Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a December 29, 2011,
7 order of the BIA affirming the March 5, 2010, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary Cheng denying her application
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re You Hui Zheng,
11 No. A095 708 510 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2011), aff’g No. A095 708
12 510 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 5, 2010). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have
16 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the
17 sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237
18 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are
19 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
20 v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 As Zheng did not allege that she was persecuted in the
22 past, she bore the burden of proving that she has a well-
2
1 founded fear or likelihood of future persecution on account
2 of a protected ground. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d
3 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); accord 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)
4 (asylum), 1208.16(b)(2) (withholding of removal). Contrary
5 to Zheng’s assertion, the agency reasonably concluded that
6 she failed to demonstrate that her claimed fear of harm
7 based on her illegal departure from China was on account of
8 a protected ground. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962
9 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir. 1992) (concluding that fear of
10 punishment for violating a generally applicable criminal
11 statute alone is not persecution on account of a protected
12 ground); see also Matter of Sibrun, 18 I&N Dec. 354, 359
13 (B.I.A. 1983) (finding that “the possibility that the
14 applicant may be subjected to criminal prosecution and
15 perhaps severe punishment as a result of his illegal
16 departure ... does not demonstrate a likelihood of
17 persecution under the [Immigration and Nationality] Act”).
18 Moreover, the agency reasonably found that the country
19 conditions evidence in the record demonstrated that Zheng’s
20 fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable, as the
21 evidence indicated that the Chinese government rarely
22 imposes fines against individuals who have departed the
3
1 country illegally and contains no report that such
2 individuals suffer physical abuse. See Ramsameachire, 357
3 F.3d at 178; see also Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125,
4 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the
5 record for [petitioner’s] assertion that he will be
6 subjected to [persecution], his fear is speculative at
7 best”). As a failure to establish a well-founded fear or
8 clear probability of persecution was dispositive of Zheng’s
9 claims for asylum and withholding of removal, we decline to
10 reach her additional challenges to the agency’s denial of
11 that relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
12 Furthermore, as Zheng’s claim for CAT relief relied on the
13 same country conditions evidence, which does not show that
14 citizens who depart China illegally face torture upon
15 return, the agency did not err in denying that relief. See
16 Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d
17 Cir. 2005); see also Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft,
320 F.3d 130,
18 143-44 (2d Cir. 2003).
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
