16-811
Zheng v. Sessions
BIA
Hom, IJ
A095 764 339
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 20th day of April, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 QIUYUN ZHENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-811
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Los Angeles, CA.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Bernard
27 A. Joseph, Senior Litigation
28 Counsel; Kate D. Balaban, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington,
32 DC.
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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Qiuyun Zheng, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 25, 2016,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a March 9, 2015, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Qiuyun Zheng, No. A095 764 339 (B.I.A. Feb. 25,
11 2016), aff’g No. A095 764 339 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 9,
12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
13 facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
15 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the bases for
16 denying relief that were not considered by the BIA. See Xue
17 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.
18 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Chuilu
20 Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 To qualify for asylum, Zheng was required to demonstrate
22 that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear
2
1 of future persecution on account of his resistance to the family
2 planning policy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R.
3 §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b); see also Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t
4 of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10, 313 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding
5 that alien cannot obtain asylum based on harm suffered by a
6 spouse or partner). The agency did not err in finding that
7 Zheng’s burden was not satisfied because he failed to submit
8 reasonably available, reliable evidence to corroborate his
9 claim that family planning officials detained and beat him for
10 posting a sign expressing opposition to China’s family planning
11 policy, and that he escaped detention and was able to flee China
12 despite his fugitive status with the assistance of a smuggler.
13 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to
14 sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only
15 if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the
16 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers
17 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant
18 is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Chuilu
19 Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97. In this case, it was reasonable for
20 the agency to require corroboration because Zheng’s testimony
21 was not sufficiently detailed to be persuasive. See 8 U.S.C.
22 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that
3
1 the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates
2 otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided
3 unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot
4 reasonably obtain the evidence.”); see also Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d
5 at 196-97. Moreover, the agency properly identified the
6 missing evidence, noting that Zheng failed to submit a statement
7 from the friend who helped him create the sign that resulted
8 in his arrest, a certified medical report, or evidence that he
9 borrowed money to pay a significant sum to smugglers. Zheng
10 failed to explain why he did not provide this evidence. See
11 Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198 (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate
12 burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from the
13 IJ.”). Furthermore, although Zheng submitted letters from his
14 former fiancée, aunt, and father, the agency did not err in
15 declining to credit those letters because they were unsworn.
16 See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring
17 to agency’s decision to afford little weight to relative’s
18 letter because it was unsworn and from an interested witness).
19 Accordingly, the agency reasonably concluded that Zheng
20 failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating past persecution
21 or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his
22 opposition to the family planning policy. See Chuilu Liu, 575
4
1 F.3d at 196-98. That finding is dispositive of asylum,
2 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms
3 of relief were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
4 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED.
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5