13-962
Zhang v. Lynch
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A200 172 732
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 14th day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JUNLI ZHANG, AKA JUN LI ZHANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-962
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
29 Director; Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Junli Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 21, 2013,
11 order of the BIA affirming the September 1, 2011, decision
12 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, denying her
13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Junli Zhang, No.
15 A200 172 732 (B.I.A. Feb. 21, 2013), aff’g No. A200 172 732
16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 1, 2011). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history in this case.
19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
20 “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d
21 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review
22 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see
23 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.
24 2009).
2
1 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish
2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear
3 of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To
4 establish a well-founded fear of a forced abortion or
5 sterilization under a coercive population control policy, an
6 applicant is required to “(1) identif[y] the government
7 policy implicated by the births at issue, (2) establish[]
8 that government officials would view the births as a
9 violation of the policy, and (3) demonstrate[] a reasonable
10 possibility that government officials would enforce the
11 policy against [the applicant] through means constituting
12 persecution.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 143
13 (2d Cir. 2008).
14 The agency did not err in concluding that Zhang failed
15 to demonstrate the objective reasonableness of her fear of
16 harm under China’s coercive population control policy. As
17 the agency found, she did not establish that family planning
18 officials would consider her to be in violation of China’s
19 one child policy, because she only has one child with her
20 husband. See id. Her assertion that she and her husband
21 want to have a second child in the future is speculative and
22 insufficient to establish her eligibility for asylum. See
3
1 Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
2 Accordingly, the agency reasonably denied Zhang asylum,
3 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because those claims
4 were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.
5 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). We need not
6 review the agency’s alternative bases for denying relief.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
14 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
19
4