2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-16-2004 

# Z he n g v . Att y Ge n U S A
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3237

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Z he n g v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 493. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/493* The Honorable J. Cliffor d Walla ce, Senior Unite d States C ircuit Judge for the Ninth C ircuit, sitting by designation
. NOT PRECEDENTIAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case. N o: 03-3237 WEI ZHENG,

Petitioner
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Respondent

_______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Imm

igration A

ppeals (No. A73 648 145)

_______________ Submitted Purs uant to Thi rd Circuit LAR 34.1

June 18, 2004 Before: Alit o, Smith, and Wallace, Circuit Judges *

(Filed: July 16, 2004)

_________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

_________________ WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge.2

Wei Z heng, a na

tive and citizen of the People’ s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Im migration Appeals’ (Board) final removal order affirming the de nial of hi s applicat ion for asylum and wi thhold ing of removal. The Boar d exercis ed juris diction purs uant to 8 C. F.R. § 3.1(b)( 3) (2002) (now codified a t 8 C.F. R. § 1003. 1(b)(3)) , and we have jur isdiction ove

r Zheng’ s timely filed peti tion pur suant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252( a)(1). The Boar d held that Z

heng has not e stablished “ a well- founded fe ar of future persecution on account of . . . religion,” Miah v. Ashcroft , 346 F.3 d 434, 438 (3d Ci r. 2003), quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1102( a)(42)(A), becau se he has no t shown that public security

officia ls would sing le him

out for ill -treatm

ent due to hi s activ ities in a Ch ines e Chri stia n con grega tion . Altho ugh t he Boa rd fou nd th e IJ’s adverse credibility determ ination to be unsupported by the record, it rejected Zheng’ s claim

because his testim

ony and lack of corroborat ing evidenc e at the deportat ion hearin g did not meet the requisi te burden of proof. This asse ssment of Zheng’ s persecution claim is “c onclusive unless any reasonab le adjudi cator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Lukwago v. Ashcroft , 329 F.3 d 157, 167 (3d Ci r. 2003), quoting 8 U.S. C. § 1252(b )(4)(B) . Since the recor d does not compel a conclus ion that Zheng has a w ell-founded fear of future pe rsecution or any other vali d claim to relief, we d eny his petit ion for rev iew.3

Zheng tes tified tha

t public security official s interrup ted and disba nded a Christian meeting he attended and arrested the congregation’s pastor. Several days later, Zheng allegedly gathered contributions from his fellow parishioners and negotiated for the pastor’s release through a third party. Z heng expresses concern t hat police might s ubject hi m to f

uture per secution due

to the prom

inent role he played in freeing the pastor. The Boar d correctly determ

ined, however, that this fe ar was objectively unre asonable gi ven Zheng’ s admi ssion that the congregat ion resum

ed regula r worshipservices after the pastor’ s release without suffering any fresh repris als from Chines e authorit ies. See id. at 175 (re cognizing that the te rm “well-f

ounded fea

r” requir es “ob jective evidence that perse cution is a reasonabl e possib ility”). Zheng cont

ends that hi s fear of

future pe rsecution is well- founded in li ght of a po lic e ass aul t on his fath er. Th e ass aul t al leg edl y occu rred dur ing a commu nit ywide sea rch for F alun Gong m

embe rs when investigator s sought to asc ertain “whether or not such a person m ight be hiding in [Zheng’s father’s] house.” Af ter Zheng’ s father declined to reveal t he where abouts of his missi ng son, the investigati ng office

rs “j ust starte d beating him up.” Although this ep isode illustrate s public security official s’ reli gious intolerance and br utality , it does no t clearly establish that they knew of Zheng’s Christian religious activities, nor does4

it prove tha

t they would likely pers ecute Zheng as a Ch ristian f ollowing his removal to China. Thus, Z heng’s testimony concer

ning his father’s injuries does not establi sh a well- founded fe ar of fut ure perse cution as r

equired to qualify

for asylum and withho lding of deportati on. See Zubeda v. Ashcroft , 333 F.3 d 463, 469-70 (3d C ir. 2003) (“[ I]f a n alien fa ils to estab lish the well-founded fear of persecut ion requir ed for a grant of a sylum , he or she will, by def inition, ha

ve failed to e stablish the

clear pr obability of persecution requir

ed for w ithholding of deportat ion.”). Zheng als o argues th at the Boa rd violate d his due proc ess rights b y rej ecting his persecution claims without a ffording him an opportunity to explain why he di d not provide a

dditional evidence corroborat ing his testi mony . In Abdulai v. Ashcroft , 239 F.3 d 542, 549 (3 d Cir. 200 1), we explained t hat “ due proces s requires three thin gs” in the c ontext of de portation pr

oceedings. “An

alien: (1) is entitled tofactfin ding based on the recor d produced b efore the

decisionm

aker and disclos ed to him or her; (2) must be allo wed to make arguments on his or h er own behalf; and (3) has the right to an individualized determination of his or her interests.” Id. (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets om itted). Here Zheng “does not contend that the decision to exclude him was based on evidence that was k

ept secret from

him, or that he was prev ented fro m making his ca se to5

the [Board] or the IJ.” Id. Neither does he dispute that the Board made “ an individualized determination of his . . . interests.” Id. Thus, we are satisfied that the Board afforde d Zheng an adequate “oppor tunity t o be heard

at a m eaningful time and in a m

eaningful manner,” which is all the process to which he was entitled under the F ifth Amendment. PETITION DENIED.