Shan Ze Zhang v. Holder , 443 F. App'x 609 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •         11-32-ag
    Zhang v. Holder
    BIA
    Abrams, IJ
    A099 930 807
    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 25th day of October, two thousand eleven.
    5
    6      PRESENT:
    7               ROGER J. MINER,
    8               ROBERT D. SACK,
    9               PETER W. HALL,
    10                    Circuit Judges.
    11      _______________________________________
    12
    13      SHAN ZE ZHANG,
    14               Petitioner,
    15
    16                        v.                                   11-32-ag
    17                                                             NAC
    18      ERIC H. HOLDER JR., UNITED STATES
    19      ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    20               Respondent.
    21      _______________________________________
    22
    23      FOR PETITIONER:                Ke-en Wang, New York, New York.
    24
    25      FOR RESPONDENT:                Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    26                                     General, Civil Division; Richard M.
    27                                     Evans, Assistant Director, Office of
    28                                     Immigration Litigation; Ann Carroll
    29                                     Varnon, Trial Attorney, Office of
    30                                     Immigration Litigation, United
    31                                     States Department of Justice,
    32                                     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          Shan Ze Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s
    6   Republic of China, seeks review of a December 16, 2010,
    7   order of the BIA, affirming the September 18, 2008, decision
    8   of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied
    9   Zhang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    10   relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).     In re
    11   Shan Ze Zhang, No. A099 930 807 (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2010),
    12   aff’g No. A099 930 807 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 18,
    13   2008).    We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
    14   underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
    15          We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
    16   BIA.     See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    426 F.3d 17
      520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).    The applicable standards of review
    18   are well-established.     See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006);
    19   Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 
    562 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
    20          Here, the agency did not err in finding that Zhang
    21   failed to establish either that authorities in China are
    22   aware or likely to become aware of his China Democracy Party
    23   (“CDP”) activities in the United States, and Zhang thus
    24   failed to show that his fear of future persecution is
    2
    1   objectively well-founded.      See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
    2   
    528 F.3d 135
    , 143 (2d Cir. 2008).     First, the agency
    3   reasonably found that Zhang failed to show that articles he
    4   wrote for the CDP website had attracted the attention of the
    5   Chinese authorities or were likely to be published in China,
    6   as Zhang testified that he never sent his articles to China,
    7   did not know if his articles ever appeared in China, did not
    8   know whether the webpage on which his articles were posted
    9   was viewed by anyone outside the United States, had never
    10   received any feedback or comments on his article indicating
    11   whether anyone agrees or disagrees with his views, had never
    12   responded or contributed to anyone else’s political blogs or
    13   postings, and had never participated in any online political
    14   discussion forums.   See 
    id. 15 The
    IJ further reasonably found that although Zhang
    16   appeared in several pictures posted on the CDP website, he
    17   had not established a reasonable likelihood that the Chinese
    18   government could identify him by name or by his position in
    19   the CDP, as he testified that the caption beneath the
    20   photographs only contained the date on which they were taken
    21   and no other identifying marker.      See 
    id. 22 Although
    Zhang argues that because his articles may be
    23   obtained via the Internet he has sustained his burden of
    24   showing a reasonable possibility that the Chinese government
    3
    1   will become aware of his political activities, we are not
    2   persuaded that the record compels this conclusion.     See
    3   Siewe v. Gonzales, 
    480 F.3d 160
    , 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where
    4   there are two permissible views of the evidence, the
    5   factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly
    6   erroneous.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    7       Zhang further argues that the letter that he received
    8   from his wife, stating that someone had alerted the Chinese
    9   authorities about his involvement with the CDP, is proof
    10   that the authorities are aware of his membership in the CDP
    11   and his pro-democracy activities.   However, the agency did
    12   not err in declining to accord this unsworn letter
    13   significant weight.   See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
    14   Justice, 
    471 F.3d 315
    , 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that the
    15   weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration
    16   proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the
    17   agency).
    18       In addition, the agency reasonably found that Zhang did
    19   not demonstrate that the Chinese government targeted
    20   individuals upon their return to China for having
    21   participated in CDP activities in the United States, as the
    22   evidence he presented either pertained to individuals who
    4
    1   engaged in activities within China or did not show the
    2   reason for the individual’s alleged arrest.   See also Jian
    3   Xing Huang v. INS, 
    421 F.3d 125
    , 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (stating
    4   that an applicant’s well-founded fear claim was “speculative
    5   at best” when he failed to present “solid support” that he
    6   would be subject to persecution).
    7       Because Zhang is unable to establish his eligibility
    8   for asylum, his applications for withholding of removal and
    9   CAT relief also fail because they are based on the same
    10   factual predicate.   See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of
    11   Justice, 
    426 F.3d 520
    , 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
    12       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    13   DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    14   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    15   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    16   this petition is DISMISSED as moot.   Any pending request for
    17   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    18   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
    19   Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
    20                               FOR THE COURT:
    21                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    22
    23
    5