Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P 43(e)(1), Attorney * General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 07 -5776-ag Zheng v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A095 457 649 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY O RDER 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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 27 day of July, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 YONG ZHONG ZHENG, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 07-5776-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, * 20 Respondent . 21

______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Feng Li, Moslemi & Associates, New York, 24 New York. 25 262 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General, Civil Division; James 3 A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Craig A. Newell, Jr., Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil 6 Division, United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, D.C. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 0 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 1 2 is DENIED. 1 3 Petitioner Yong Zhong Zheng, a native and citizen of 1 4 the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 1 5 7, 2007, order of the BIA affirming the August 3, 2004, 1 6 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson on 1 7 the ground that Zheng did not carry his burden of 1 8 demonstrating eligibility for asylum, withholding of 1 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 2 0 (“CAT”). In re Yong Zhong Zheng , No. A095 457 649 (B.I.A. 2 1 Dec. 7, 2007), aff’gNo. A095 457 649 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 2 2 Aug. 3, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 2 3 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 2 4 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 5 IJ’s decision, as modified by the BIA decision, i.e., minus 2 6 the arguments for denying relief that were rejected by the3 1 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 2 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 3 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian 4 Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); 5 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). 6 I. Past Persecution 7 The agency found that Zheng failed to establish past 8 persecution because: (1) despite threats of sterilization, 9 Zheng suffered no physical harm in China; and (2) the 1 0 economic harm he suffered did not rise to the level of 1 1 persecution. Zheng’s challenges to these findings are not 1 2 persuasive. We “previously have rejected . . . claims 1 3 [that] ‘unfulfilled’ threats” constitute persecution. See 14 Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 449 F.3d 408, 412 (2d Cir. 1 5 2006). With respect to economic persecution, Zheng produced 1 6 no evidence that would make it possible to evaluate his 1 7 personal financial circumstances in relation to the fines 1 8 imposed by the government and the consequences of losing his 1 9 job. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 161-62; see also Guan 20 Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2 1 2002). We therefore find no error in the agency’s 2 2 determination that Zheng failed to establish past 2 3 persecution.4 1 II. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution 2 In the absence of past persecution, an alien can 3 demonstrate eligibility for relief if he can show that he 4 has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of 5 a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i). Here, 6 however, the agency reasonably found that Zheng provided 7 insufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of 8 future persecution on account of his alleged violation of 9 China’s family planning policy. 1 0 We find no support for Zheng’s argument that the BIA 1 1 failed to adequately consider the evidence of record, and we 1 2 generally accord deference to the agency’s evaluation of 1 3 such evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 1 4 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ reasonably 1 5 afforded the unauthenticated letters Zheng submitted 1 6 diminished weight, as she found that they “were clearly 1 7 provided and were prepared for litigation purposes,” and 1 8 contained “no indicia of their reliability.” I.J. Op. at 19 14; see Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 2 0 & n.5 (BIA 2010) (holding that unsigned, unauthenticated 2 1 documents, from a “Street Resident Committee” and “Villager 2 2 Committee,” that fail to identify the authors, are entitledContrary to the government’s assertion that Zheng 1 failed to exhaust any challenge to the agency’s denial of his claim for withholding of removal, because the BIA considered that claim, we deem it to have been exhausted. See Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS , 446 F.3d 289, 296-97 (2d Cir. 2006). Because Zheng does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim before this Court, we deem that argument abandoned. See Yueqing-Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.2d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005). 5 1 to minimal weight, especially when the documents were 2 allegedly obtained from the authorities specifically for the 3 purpose of the hearing on the applicant’s behalf). 4 Moreover, the agency did not err by summarily considering 5 the relevant U.S. State Department reports, evidence it has 6 considered time and again in virtually identical cases. See 7 Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 166; see also Wei Guang Wang v. 8 BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006) . Thus, substantial 9 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zheng 1 0 failed to establish a well-founded fear of future 1 1 persecution. As Zheng was unable to meet his burden for 1 2 asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher burden 1 3 required for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales , 1 1 4 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15 1 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition6 1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 8