Cheng Dian Zheng v. Holder

11-4771
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A094 939 055
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 27th day of September, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 CHENG DIAN ZHENG,
14
15 Petitioner,
16 11-4771
17 v. NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina,
29 Jr., Assistant Director; Yanal H.
30 Yousef, Trial Attorney, Office of
31 Immigration Litigation, Civil
32 Division, United States Department
33 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 Petitioner Cheng Dian Zheng, a native and citizen of
6 the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October
7 31, 2011 decision of the BIA affirming the October 28, 2009
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace, which
9 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Cheng Dian Zheng, No. A094 939 055 (B.I.A. Oct. 31,
12 2011), aff’g No. A094 939 055 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 28,
13 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented
15 for review.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
17 decision of the IJ as modified and supplemented by the BIA.
18 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005);
19 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522
20 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
21 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
22 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Zheng
23 does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief, we
2
1 have reviewed only the denial of asylum and withholding of
2 removal.
3 Zheng argues that the IJ erred by finding that he
4 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
5 persecution based on his practice of Christianity and desire
6 to continue his religious practices in China if he were
7 removed. To demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
8 persecution, an asylum applicant must show that he
9 subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is
10 objectively reasonable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Kyaw
11 Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 564 (2d Cir. 2006). An
12 asylum applicant can demonstrate that a fear is objectively
13 reasonable by either: (1) offering evidence that “he . . .
14 would be singled out individually for persecution”; or
15 (2) by proving the existence of “a pattern or practice of
16 persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the
17 applicant.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2), 1208.16(b)(2). The
18 applicant must also demonstrate “that authorities in his
19 country of nationality are either aware of his activities or
20 likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng
21 v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). Here, the IJ
22 reasonably found that Zheng failed to establish an
23 objectively reasonable basis for fearing persecution in
24 China.
3
1 Although Zheng’s evidence indicated that Chinese
2 authorities arrested and detained members of unregistered
3 churches, the IJ did not err in requiring evidence from
4 Zheng’s native Fujian Province because the evidence
5 indicated that the treatment of unregistered churches varied
6 widely between regions. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
7 F.3d 138, 142, 149 (2d Cir. 2008). As the IJ reasonably
8 found, the fact that Zheng continued to attend unregistered
9 churches without incident for more than six years after his
10 church had been raided undermined the reasonableness of his
11 fear that he would be persecuted in Fujian Province. See
12 Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
13 (per curiam); cf. Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307,
14 313 (2d Cir. 1999).
15 Moreover, despite evidence that Chinese authorities
16 “monitor” unregistered churches and prominent religious
17 leaders, the IJ reasonably found that Zheng failed to
18 establish that Chinese authorities were aware or likely to
19 become aware of his religious beliefs and practice given his
20 ability to practice in an unregistered church before
21 departing China and his assertion that he is merely a
22 member, not a leader, of the house church movement. The IJ
23 therefore did not err in finding that Zheng had failed to
24 establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
4
1 § 1101(a)(42); Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142-43; Jian Xing
2 Huang, 421 F.3d at 129. Because Zheng was unable to show
3 the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out
4 an asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the
5 higher standard required to succeed on a claim for
6 withholding of removal. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357
7 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
15 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
20
5