09-4254-ag
Zhen v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A078 845 609
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 6 th day of August, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YU LONG ZHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4254-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Civil Division; Ada E.
27 Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel,
28 Office of Immigration Litigation;
29 Puneet Cheema, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 Civil Division, United States
32 Department of Justice, Washington,
33 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 Yu Long Zhen, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 14,
7 2009, order of the BIA affirming the February 8, 2008,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson
9 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Yu Long Zhen, No. A078 845 609 (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 2009),
12 aff’g No. A078 845 609 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 8, 2008).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.
17 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. Corovic v.
19 Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v.
20 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 The agency found that Zhen failed to establish that he
22 engaged in “other resistance” to the family planning policy.
23 As the government asserts, however, Zhen fails to
2
1 meaningfully challenge this finding in this Court as his
2 brief consists solely of boilerplate legal standards and a
3 general and conclusory sentence that his actions constituted
4 other resistance to the Chinese family planning policy. The
5 record supports the IJ’s determination that Zhen established
6 only that he asked the family planning officials to delay
7 his wife’s sterilization, not that he opposed the
8 sterilization or the family planning policy. Zhen does not
9 provide any specifics of any other actions that he contends
10 constituted "other resistence" to China's population control
11 policy. Accordingly, we deem Zhen’s challenge to be waived.
12 See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d
13 Cir. 2005). Zhen’s waiver of his challenge to the agency’s
14 finding that he failed to demonstrate that he engaged in
15 “other resistance” to the family planning policy is
16 dispositive of the petition for review.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
19 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
20 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
21 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
22 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
23
24 FOR THE COURT:
25 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
26
3