[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-12797 DEC 30, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A088-527-961
HANG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(December 30, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The petition for review presents one issue:
Whether substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration
Appeal’s (“BIA’s”) finding that petitioner failed to establish his
eligibility for asylum because he failed to show that he suffered past
persecution or had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
his “other resistance” to China’s family planning policy.1
Petitioner Hang Zheng argues that substantial evidence does not support the
BIA’s finding that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, because he
demonstrated that he suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of
future persecution on account of his “other resistance” to China’s family planning
policy. Zheng’s claim of past persecution is based on (1) his 1998 arrest, 5-minute
beating that left bruises, and 24-hour detention following his objection to the
examination of his then-girlfriend and current wife based on a falsely reported
pregnancy, (2) his wife’s 2007 involuntary sterilization while he was in the United
States, and (3) the Chinese government’s act of requiring his wife to pay a fine of
25,600 yuan, which she paid the same day it was assessed. Other than the 1998
incident, Zheng does not identify any basis for his fear of future persecution.
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment unless the BIA
expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th
1
The BIA’s order of removal denied petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of
removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the U.N. Convention
Against Torture. His brief to us only challenges the denial of asylum; hence, we do not address
the denial of the other applied for relief.
2
Cir. 2007). Here, the BIA issued its own opinion, so we only review the BIA’s
decision.
The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed under the highly deferential
substantial evidence test, which requires us to view “the record evidence in the
light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir.
2004) (en banc). We “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation
omitted). We will not engage in a de novo review of the BIA’s factual findings.
Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027.
The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to
grant asylum if the alien meets the definition of “refugee.” Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(b)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A “refugee”
includes any person who is unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to
avail himself of the protection of, the country of his nationality where he last
habitually resided, “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The
3
applicant has the burden of proof to establish that he is a refugee. INA §
208(b)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
A showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of a
well-founded fear of future persecution. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). However, an alien who has not shown past
persecution still may be entitled to asylum if he can demonstrate a future threat in
his country to his life or freedom on a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2).
To establish eligibility for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future
persecution, the applicant must prove (1) a “subjectively genuine and objectively
reasonable” fear of persecution that is (2) on account of a protected ground. Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1287, 1289. “The subjective component is generally satisfied
by the applicant’s credible testimony that he or she genuinely fears persecution,”
while “the objective prong can be fulfilled either by establishing past persecution
or that he or she has a good reason to fear future persecution.” Id. at 1289
(quotation omitted).
The “cumulative effects” of the alleged incidents of persecution must
amount to past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Delgado
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 861-62 (11th Cir. 2007). Persecution is not
defined in the INA, but it is “an extreme concept, requiring more than a few
4
isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 572 F.3d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted); Djonda v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a finding of
persecution was not compelled based on evidence showing that the alien suffered
a minor beating that resulted in scratches and bruises, was detained 36 hours, and
was threatened with arrest).
The INA includes in its definition of a “refugee”:
a person who has been forced to . . . undergo involuntary sterilization,
or who has been persecuted for . . . other resistance to a coercive
population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted
on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded
fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or
subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be
deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of
political opinion.
INA § 101(a)(42)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B).
The fact that an asylum applicant’s spouse underwent a forced abortion or
sterilization does not automatically confer upon the applicant refugee status. Yu v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2009). “Rather, the person who
did not physically undergo the forced procedure, or is not subject to a
well-founded fear of one, must establish actual persecution for resisting a
country’s coercive family planning policy, or a well-founded fear of future
5
persecution for doing so.” Id. at 1333 (quotation omitted). The BIA defines the
term “resistance” to include “expressions of general opposition, attempts to
interfere with enforcement of government policy in particular cases, and other
overt forms of resistance to the requirements of the family law.” Id. at 1334
(quotation omitted). “In simple terms, persecution, or the fear thereof, must be
personally endured by the applicant,” as a result of his resistance to the forced
family planning policy. Id. at 1333. Further, the potential for prosecution and
punishment for leaving a country illegally is not a statutorily protected ground
entitling an alien to asylum. Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1310, 1316-17 (11th
Cir. 2009).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum
because Zheng did not demonstrate past persecution based on political opinion or
a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to China. His petition is
accordingly
DENIED.
6