09-2182-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Burr, IJ
A097 952 812
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 19 th day of May, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
REENA RAGGI,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
CAI XIN ZHENG, AKA CHAI XIN ZHENG, AKA
CHA XIN ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v. 09-2182-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Yu Zhang, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Brianne Whelan
Cohen, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Cai Xin Zheng, a native and citizen of
China, seeks review of an April 27, 2009, order of the BIA
affirming the June 29, 2006, decision of Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) Sarah Burr, denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In re Cai Xin
Zheng, No. A097 952 812 (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2009), aff’g No.
A097 952 812 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 29, 2006). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
BIA’s decision alone. See Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d
619, 622-23 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards of
review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008);
Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
As amended by the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) provides that an asylum “applicant must
establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion was or will be
2
at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”
We detect no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Zheng’s
asylum claim lacked a sufficient nexus to one of the five
protected grounds.
While a reasonable adjudicator could have found that
Chinese authorities were at least partially motivated to
persecute Zheng on account of disparaging remarks he made
about the government, Zheng articulates no basis for
concluding that a reasonable adjudicator would have been
compelled to find that such a motive played a central role
in Zheng’s treatment. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i),
1252(b)(4)(B). That is, China’s general intolerance for
dissent does not compel the conclusion that the police
arrested and detained Zheng on account of his political
opinion rather than on account of his interference with the
government’s condemnation of Zheng’s family home. See
Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289
(2d Cir. 2007) (“An IJ’s factual finding will be affirmed if
it is supported by evidence that is reasonable, substantial,
and probative when considered in light of the record as a
whole.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In light of
the foregoing, the BIA reasonably denied Zheng’s application
for asylum.
3
Because Zheng was unable to establish eligibility for
asylum, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher
standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of
removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial
of Zheng’s application for CAT relief. Although Zheng
testified that security guards broke his finger while he was
detained for ten days, he also testified that he was
released and asked to pay a fine as restitution. Indeed,
Zheng provided little more than background country
conditions evidence of human rights abuses in China in
support of his claim, which is insufficient to establish
that he is more likely than not to be tortured upon his
return. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d
156, 158-60 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zheng failed to
establish eligibility for CAT relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5