12-327

Zheng v. Holder

BIA

Cheng, IJ

A095 708 510

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 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,

on the 4th 4 day of June, two thousand thirteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________

12

13 YOU HUI ZHENG,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 12-327

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant

26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,

27 Assistant Director; Allison Frayer,

28 Trial Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, Civil

30 Division, United States Department

31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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

4 is DENIED.

5 You Hui Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s

6 Republic of China, seeks review of a December 29, 2011,

7 order of the BIA affirming the March 5, 2010, decision of

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary Cheng denying her application

9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re You Hui Zheng,

11 No. A095 708 510 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2011), aff’g No. A095 708

12 510 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 5, 2010). We assume the

13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

14 procedural history in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have

16 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the

17 sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237

18 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are

19 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng

20 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

21 As Zheng did not allege that she was persecuted in the

22 past, she bore the burden of proving that she has a well2
1 founded fear or likelihood of future persecution on account

2 of a protected ground. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d

3 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); accord 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)

4 (asylum), 1208.16(b)(2) (withholding of removal). Contrary

5 to Zheng’s assertion, the agency reasonably concluded that

6 she failed to demonstrate that her claimed fear of harm

7 based on her illegal departure from China was on account of

8 a protected ground. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962

9 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir. 1992) (concluding that fear of

10 punishment for violating a generally applicable criminal

11 statute alone is not persecution on account of a protected

12 ground); see also Matter of Sibrun, 18 I&N Dec. 354, 359

13 (B.I.A. 1983) (finding that “the possibility that the

14 applicant may be subjected to criminal prosecution and

15 perhaps severe punishment as a result of his illegal

16 departure ... does not demonstrate a likelihood of

17 persecution under the [Immigration and Nationality] Act”). 

18 Moreover, the agency reasonably found that the country

19 conditions evidence in the record demonstrated that Zheng’s

20 fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable, as the

21 evidence indicated that the Chinese government rarely

22 imposes fines against individuals who have departed the

3
1 country illegally and contains no report that such

2 individuals suffer physical abuse. See Ramsameachire, 357

3 F.3d at 178; see also Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125,

4 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the

5 record for [petitioner’s] assertion that he will be

6 subjected to [persecution], his fear is speculative at

7 best”). As a failure to establish a well-founded fear or

8 clear probability of persecution was dispositive of Zheng’s

9 claims for asylum and withholding of removal, we decline to

10 reach her additional challenges to the agency’s denial of

11 that relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 

12 Furthermore, as Zheng’s claim for CAT relief relied on the

13 same country conditions evidence, which does not show that

14 citizens who depart China illegally face torture upon

15 return, the agency did not err in denying that relief. See

16 Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d

17 Cir. 2005); see also Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130,

18 143-44 (2d Cir. 2003). 

19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

4
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

5 FOR THE COURT: 

6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5