19-3849
Zhong v. Garland
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A200 919 261
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
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 5th day of January, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 WEI JUN ZHONG, AKA XIAO JUN
14 ZHONG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 19-3849
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Aleksander Boleslaw Milch, Esq.,
25 The Kasen Law Firm, PLLC,
26 Flushing, NY.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
29 Assistant Attorney General; Song
1 Park, Acting Assistant Director;
2 Virginia L. Gordon, Trial
3 Attorney, Office of Immigration
4 Litigation, United States
5 Department of Justice, Washington,
6 DC.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioner Wei Jun Zhong, a native and citizen of the
13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 21,
14 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a February 27, 2018,
15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) terminating Zhong’s
16 asylee status and ordering removal. In re Wei Jun Zhong, No.
17 A200 919 261 (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2019), aff’g No. A200 919 261
18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2018). We assume the parties’
19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions.
21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
22 Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s findings of fact for
23 substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See Lecaj
24 v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010).
25 “Asylum . . . does not convey a right to remain
26 permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if
2
1 the [agency] determines that . . . the alien no longer meets
2 the conditions [for asylum] . . . owing to a fundamental
3 change in circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(2). “An [IJ]
4 or the [BIA] may reopen a case . . . for the purpose of
5 terminating a grant of asylum.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f). “In
6 such a reopened proceeding, the [Government] must establish,
7 by a preponderance of evidence” that, as relevant here, the
8 alien’s asylum application contained fraud “such that he or
9 she was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.”
10 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(a)(1), (f). The agency did not err in
11 reopening and terminating Zhong’s asylee status.
12 The agency reasonably found that the Government
13 established by a preponderance of the evidence that Zhong’s
14 application was fraudulent given that it was prepared by an
15 attorney later convicted of immigration fraud for filing
16 asylum applications containing strikingly similar claims to
17 Zhong’s claim during the period Zhong’s application was
18 filed. See id.; see also Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of
19 Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]his court has
20 . . . firmly embraced the commonsensical notion that striking
21 similarities between affidavits are an indication that the
22 statements are canned.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
3
1 Further, the agency provided Zhong an opportunity to respond
2 to the Government’s evidence of fraud, but reasonably found
3 his testimony not credible given his inconsistent statements
4 regarding whether he had ever been arrested and whether he
5 had ever met the lawyer, later convicted of fraud, who
6 prepared his application and attended a master calendar
7 hearing with him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see
8 also Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)
9 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from
10 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.
11 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more
12 forcefully.”). We do not consider Zhong’s remaining
13 arguments, which are unexhausted. See Lin Zhong v. U.S.
14 Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1, 122 (2d Cir. 2007).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
17 stays VACATED.
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
20 Clerk of Court
4