Zheng v. Barr

18-214
Zheng v. Barr
BIA
Hom, IJ
A089 254 139/140
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 TO 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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 21st day of October, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 NA ZHENG, JIN DE PAN,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 18-214
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
26 Attorney General; Jeffery R.
27 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel;
28 Colette J. Winston, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington,
32 DC.
06152016-10
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 Petitioners Na Zheng and Jin De Pan, natives and citizens
6 of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a January
7 12, 2018, BIA decision that affirmed the April 11, 2017,
8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and
9 withholding of removal. In re Na Zheng, Jin De Pan, Nos.
10 A089 254 139/140 (B.I.A. Jan. 12, 2018), aff’g Nos. A089 254
11 139/140 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 11, 2017). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
13 history in this case. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the
14 BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v.
15 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 Zheng applied for asylum and withholding of removal,
17 naming Pan as a derivative beneficiary, and asserting that
18 she fears persecution based on the birth of their children in
19 the United States in violation of China’s population control
20 program and her involvement with the Democratic Party of China
21 (“DPC”) in the United States. The applicable standards of
22 review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
23 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
06282019-5
1 For largely the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui
2 Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that
3 Zheng failed to satisfy her burden of proof as to her family
4 planning claim. See id. at 158-67. The agency reasonably
5 concluded that isolated reports of forced sterilizations that
6 lack details (such as those cited by Zheng) do not outweigh
7 significant country conditions evidence that enforcement
8 efforts typically involve economic incentives and penalties
9 rather than force. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 159-62,
10 172.
11 The agency also did not err in finding that Zheng failed
12 to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account
13 of her pro-democracy activities in the United States. See
14 Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 333-35 (2d Cir. 2013). The
15 agency was not compelled to credit Zheng’s testimony,
16 unsupported by reliable evidence, that Chinese authorities
17 are aware of her activities in the United States. See id.
18 at 334. And the agency did not err in rejecting the
19 “suggestion that the Chinese government is aware of every
20 anti-Communist or pro-democracy piece of commentary published
21 online,” particularly when, as here, the articles include
22 only a name as identifying information. See id. Nor did the
23 IJ abuse his discretion in declining to accept Zheng’s late-
3
06282019-5
1 filed evidence or witness testimony. See Dedji v. Mukasey,
2 525 F.3d 187, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
7 Clerk of Court
4
06282019-5