12-4324
Liu v. Garland
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A096 191 966/965
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
New York, on the 7th day of July, two thousand twenty-one.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
DENNIS JACOBS,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SU ZHEN LIU, YI FA CHEN,
Petitioners,
v. 12-4324
NAC
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: David Z. Su, West Covina,
CA.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-
Kelting, Assistant Director;
Richard Kelley, Anna Juarez, Trial
06152016-10
Attorneys, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States
Department of Justice, Washington,
DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioners Su Zhen Liu and Yi Fa Chen, natives and
citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of an
October 15, 2012, BIA decision that affirmed the September
29, 2010, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
asylum and withholding of removal. In re Su Zhen Liu, Yi Fa
Chen, Nos. A096 191 966/965 (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2012), aff’g
Nos. A096 191 966/965 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 29, 2010).
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d
524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review
are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioners applied for asylum
and withholding of removal, naming Chen as a derivative
2
062021-2
beneficiary and asserting that Liu fears persecution based on
the birth of their children in Belize and the United States
in violation of China’s population control program.
While we recognize that the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao
were from Fujian Province, and Petitioners here are from
Guangdong Province, our reasoning in that case, see id. at
158-67, is nonetheless largely applicable to this case. We
find no error in the agency's determination that Petitioners
failed to satisfy their burden for asylum and withholding of
removal because their evidence of conditions in Guangdong
Province does not describe the use of force in the enforcement
of the family planning policy and their personalized evidence
does not show persecution of similarly situated individuals,
i.e., Chinese nationals returning to China with foreign-born
children. See id. at 160-61, 165-66, 171-72.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court
3
062021-2