The Honor able Edmund A. Sar g us, J r., United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0535n.06 No. 08-4594 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
J I N Z HOU Z HENG, Petitioner,
v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., UNI TED STATES A T T O R N E Y G E N E RA L, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF A N ORDER OF THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

BEFORE: GILMA N and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and S ARG US, DistrictJudge. * McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. J in Zh o u Z heng , a citizen of China and a resident of

the United States, applied for withholding of r emoval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA ” ) a nd pr ote c tio n und e r t

he Un ite d N a tio ns Con ve nti on Ag a ins t T or

tur e and Ot he r C ru e l, I nhuman or De g radingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT”). When she submi tted her a pplication, Z hengwas mar

ri ed t o a Chinese c itiz en who a lso resided in this country . The c ouple had two ch il dr e n , b o th o f w h o m w e r e b o r n in th is c o un tr

y . B a s e d o n th e f

a c t th a t s h e h a d tw o children, Z hengargued that she w ould be subject to for ced ste riliz ati o n if she we re r eturne d to China. The I mm ig r a ti o n Ju d g e ( “ I J” ) c o n c lu d e d th a t s h e h a d n o t p r o v id e d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to support her application and the Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”) aff irmed.No. 08-4594

Zheng v. Holder

- 2 - On petition for re view, we find that the B IA did not abuse its discretion.

I Z hengwas born in F ujian Province and lived there most of her life. She e ntere d the United States without inspection in 1998. I n Aug ust 2006, Z heng marrie d a C hinese citiz en residing in the United States. Her

husband had earlier

been de nied asylum but gra nted voluntary

depar ture in 1999; when Z hengfiled her

application, her

husband had not y et depar ted from the United States. Z heng ’s counsel stated that his firm was consider ing f iling a motion to reope n the husband’s c ase. The c ouple had two children born in the Unit ed S tates, a daug hter (2000) and a son (2003). Z hengapplied for

withholding of r emoval in Octobe r 2006, cla iming that she f ear ed beingsterilized if retur ned to China bec ause she had two childre n. Specifica lly , she asse rted that she w anted to have additional chi l d re n , b ut that she fea red be ing subje ct to forc ed sterilization in C hina under that country ’s population-control policies. She c laimed that her sister had be en for ced to have an abortion and that she knew many people who wer e forced to underg o sterilization or abortion. Z heng subsequently

stated that it was her

cousin, not her sister, w ho had the a bortion. The I J held a h ea ri ng on Z heng ’s application. Zhe ng was re prese nted by counsel at the hear ing a nd testified on her

own beha lf. The I J q u es t i oned counse l whether Z heng ’s application included a c laim of asylum because the application had been f iled more than a

y ear afte r Z heng had enter ed the c ountry . The I NA re q u i re s that an asy lum claimant “demonstrate[] by clea r and convincingevidenc e that the a pplication has bee n filed within 1 y ear afte r t h e date of the a lien’s
arr ival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)( B) . This require ment is subject to exceptionsNo. 08-4594

Zheng v. Holder

- 3 - in case s when the a lien “demonstrates to the s atisfac tion of t he Attorne y Gene ral e ither the e x istence of cha ng ed cir cumstance s which mater ially aff ect the a pplicant’s eli g ibilit y

for a sy lum or extraordinary circ umstances relating to the delay in filing an application within” the one -y ear period. Id. § 1158(a )( 2 )( D)
. T h e I J deter mined that the birth of Z heng ’s son in 2003 could not sustain a chang ed-c ircumstance s finding be cause she wa ited three y ear s after that birth befor e apply

ing f or asylum. Counsel clarified, “ [W ]hen we applied, w e under stood that it was for with h o l d i n g.” Appendix (“App.”) 115. Z hengincluded seve ral doc uments with her applica tion. One docum en t , a letter from her fathe r date d Aug ust 2006, stated in part that she would be forced to underg o sterilization if she wa s to return. Anothe r docume nt was re fer red to a s a “Sterilization Notice ” which Z hengalleg ed to have be e n is su e d b y

a c omm itt e e fr om h e r h ome tow n. Th e do c ume nt s ta te d in pa rt , “ Yo u s ha ll c ome to pay the pena lty

and under

g o the sterilization procedures ac co rd i ng to the national birth control policy .” A

p p . 2 8 6
. O th e r

d o c u me nts in cluded va

rious news re ports about population-control policies in China and a tra

nscript of a cong ressional hear ing from 1998. The I J also acc epted into evidence the U.S. State Depa

rtment’s 2006 Country Report on Human Rights Practice s fo r C h i n a (“2006 Country Report”) and its 2005 Profile of Asylum Cl aims and Country Conditi ons for China. After hear ing te stimony

from Z hengand re viewing the d o cu m en t s, the I J issued an ora l
ru lin g . T he I J found

that f e ar o f fo rc e d ste ri lizatio n or a bo rt ion in c on ne c tio n w ithc oe rc e d f a mil y pla nn ingc on sti tut e d me mbe rs hip in a pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up fo r p ur

po se s o f t he imm ig ra

tio n la ws . Th e I J fur

the r f ound Z he ngto b e a cred ib le witne ss. Ye t, e ve n w ithZ he ng ’s g e ne ra lly c re dib le testimony , the I J denied he r application. The I J relied upon the 2006 Country Report, which state dNo. 08-4594

Zheng v. Holder

- 4 - that the policies in forc e in Fujian Provinc e did not require termination of preg nancy if a pre g nancy violated population-control r eg ulations, but inst ead imposed unspecified r emedial mea sures. Af ter revie wing the re g ulations perta ining to marrie d couples who have children while living abroa d, the I J fou nd that Z he ngha d n ot s ho wn that it wa s mo re lik e ly

th an no t th a t sh e wo uld

be su bje c t to forc ed sterilization or other per secution or torture wer e she to re turn to Fujian Province
. T h e B IA a f

f i r m e d o na p p e a l
. A s t o w h e t h e r Z h e n g t i m e l y m a d e a c l a i m f o r a s y l u m , t h e B IA
no te d th a t he r c ouns e l con c e de d be fo re the I J tha t sh e wa s in e lig ibl e fo r a sylum and , in any e ve nt, her a rg ument that her husba

nd’s application provided some ba sis for finding that her a pplication was tim e ly wa s, in the wo rd s o f t

he B I A, “ ba se le ss. ” Ap p. 2. I t c on c lud e d th a t th e re wa s “ no re a so n to disturb the I mmigr a

ti o n Ju d g e ’s pre termission of [Zheng ’s] asy lum application.” Id. As to t he c la ims for withholding of re moval, the B I A ag ree d with the I J that they should be denied: We are in a g ree ment with the I mmigration Judge ’s conclusion that [Zheng ] has not prese nted any

objective e vidence to suppor t a finding that China has a national policy of for ced ste riliz ation of re turnee s with foreig n born childre n, reg ardle ss of wher e the children or spouse currently reside (I .J . at 6-9). See Matter of J-W -S- , 24 I &NDec
. 185 (B I A 2007) (f

inding, inter

alia, tha t al t h o ug h some sanctions may be imposed purs ua nt t o lo c a l f

a mil y pla nn ingpo lic ie s in

Chi na for th e bi rt h of a

se c on d c hil d abroa d, t h e ap p l icant fa iled to provide evide nce that such sanctions in Fujian Province or Cha

ng le City would rise to the level of perse cution). The re spondent has not rai s e d

a n y ar g u me n ts o na

p p e a l t h a t w o u ld

p e r s u a d e u s to f

in d o th e r w is e. Ac c or din g ly , w e fi nd that the re sp on de nt fa ile d to est a bli sh that she wi ll m or e lik e ly than not be per secute d or torture d in China. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b),(c )(2)
. App. 3. Z hengpetitioned this court for r eview.

IINo. 08-4594

Zheng v. Holder

- 5 - A. As ylu m Z hengargues that her

claim for a sy lum wa s not untim ely under the one-y ear

rule be cause she was de pendent upon he r husband’ s asylum application prior to submission of her own a pplication. I n h e r br ie f to t

he B I A, sh e argue d th a t th is p ro vid e d “ so me ba sis ” fo r h e r t o h a ve be e n d e e me d to have f iled the claim within one y ear of her last arr ival in the Unit ed S tates. App. 12. Ye t, her c ounsel
c on c e de d b e fo re the I J tha t any c la im f or a sylum wo uld be ba rr e d a s unti me ly . T he I J subs e qu e ntl y treated the application as one for withholding, not asylum, and the B I A af firmed. We h a v e a li mi te d r o le in r e v ie w in g th e B I A ’ s d e c is io n o n w h e th e r a c la im w a s ti me ly
. We do n o t have jurisdiction to revie w any discretionar

y or fa ctual dete rmination reg ardingwhether
c ha ng e d o r e xtra or din ary

c ir c ums tanc e s e xist to e xcu se an o the rw ise un tim e ly c la im f or a sy lum , a lth ou g h w e do have jur isd ic tio n to re vie w c on sti tut ion a l or statut or y -c on str uc tio n is su e s. 8 U .S. C. § 1 15 8( a )( 3) ; Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006) . Z heng ’s ar g ument that he r as y lu m cla im w a s ti me ly do e s n ot r a ise c on sti tut ion a l or statut or y -c on str uc tio n is su e s. Acc ording ly , we r eview Z heng ’s claims as ones for withholding of r emoval under the I NA and the CA T, no t a sylum
.

B. Withhol din g of Rem oval Th e B I A d id n ot a do pt in toto the I J ’s re asoning , but rather stated that it was in ag ree ment with the I J ’s conc lusion that Zhe ng had fa iled to provide sufficient evidence to warra nt withholding of re mov a l. Whe n the B I A do e s “ no t su mma ri ly a ff ir m or a do pt t he I J’s r e a so nin g and

pr ov ide [s]
an ex planation for its decision, we review the B I A’s dec ision as the final ag ency deter mination.” Ilic-No. 08-4594

Zheng v. Holder

- 6 - Lee v. Muk

asey , 507 F .3 d 104 4, 10 47 (6 th Cir . 200 7)
. I n re vie wi ng the de c isi on of the B I A, we mus t treat “administrative finding s of fa ct [as] conclusive unle ss any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (B ).

“ We r e vie w the B I A’ s d e c isi on on a re qu e st f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l und er the s a me standard r eg ardle ss of whethe r the re quest was made pursuant to the I NA or the CAT.” Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 749. “To prevail on a petiti on for withholding of re moval under the I NA, or on a

petition for withholding of re moval under the CAT, an alien must show that there is a ‘cle ar pr obability ’ that she would be subj ec t to persec ution, for the I NA, or to torture , for the CAT . . . .” Koulji nski v. Keisler , 505 F.3d 534, 544 ( 6th Cir. 2007). “This showing of ‘clear probability ’ requires more than that neede d to demonstrate r efug ee status, which re q u i res only a ‘w ell-founde d fea

r of [future] perse cution.’” Id. ( qu o t i n g 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 0 8
. 1 3 ( b ) )
. T h e r e g u l a t i o n s d e f i n e t h e “ c l e ar

p r o b a b i l i t y” sta nd ard a s r e qu ir ingthat “[a ]n app lic ant wh o ha s not suf fe re d pa st p e rs e c uti on

. . . e sta bli shthat it is more likely

than not” that she w ould be per secute d or torture d on the basis of one of the protec ted g rounds upon her

return. 8 C.F .R. § 1208.16(b)(2)
. I n stating that Z henghad fa iled to prov i d e sufficient evidenc e that China had a national policy of for ced ste ril i z ation of re turnee s with foreig n-born c hildren, the B I A cited its published decision, In re J

-W -S- , 24 I &N Dec
. 185 (B I A 2007). I n that case , the B I A consider ed the c laim of a C h inese c itiz en who soug ht asy lum from China’s population-control policies a nd who re lied on documentar

y evidenc e much like Z heng ’s. Afte r re viewing the evidenc e, the B I A found: Th e e vid e nc e of

re c or d s ug g e sts that if

a re tur ne e wh o ha s h a d a

se c on d c hil d w hil e outside of China is penalized at all upon return, the sanctions would be f ines or otherNo. 08-4594

Zheng v. Holder

- 7 - economic pe nalties. Enforc ement ef forts re sulting in modera te ec onomic impact would not, in ge nera l, prove a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution. Id. a t 19 1. Th e B I A c on c luded, “ [T]he e vid e nc e of re c or d d oe s n ot d e mon str a te that th e Chi ne se g overnme nt has a national policy of re quiring forc ed sterilization of pare nts w h o return w ith a second child born outside of China.” Id. at 192. As a pa nel of this court re cently noted, “Othe r cour ts have de clined to vac ate similar orde rs of the B I A involving similarly situated petitioners.” Y

ang Lin v. Holder , No. 08-3138, slip op. at 15 (6 t h C i r. Ap r. 9 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( unp u b l i s h ed ) ( ci t i n g Huang v. M ukasey , 523 F.3d 640, 654 (6th Cir. 2008); Song W ang v. Keisler , 505 F.3d 615, 622-23 (7th Cir. 2007) (a ffirming the B I A’s dete rmination that
a pp lic ants did

no t e sta bli shthe re wo uld

be any pe na lty fo r U nit e d St a te s cit iz en chi ldre n, e ve n if
a pp lic ants we re to re tur

n to PRC w iththe ir

c hil dr e n) ; Aie W

u v. Muk asey , 273 F. App’ x 12, 14 (2d Cir . 2 00 8) (u

np ub lis he d) (r e fe rr ingto t he 20 07 State De pa

rtme nt R e po rt

in f ind ing“ Chi ne se regulations stipul ate that c hildren born ove rsea s are not counted for purposes of a dminist eringthe family planning policy ”))
. Z heng makes sever al arguments that we find unpe rsuasive. She c ontends that eve n if there is ev ide nc e that Chine se a uth or iti e s ar e re fr a ini ng a t the mom e nt f ro m pu rs uin g fo rc e d s te ri lizatio ns , the authorities “may

tighten up at any

moment without warning .” Pet. B r. at 16. This is conjec ture wi tho ut a ny fa c tua l ba sis in t

he re c or d. She a lso take s is su e wi th t he I J ’s rel ian ce on Sta te Depa rtment repor

ts be cause , she asser

ts, the repor

ts are f lawed a nd inconsistent. I n In re J -W -S- , the B I A r e lie d u

po n the sam e S tate D e pa rtme nt c ountr

y re po rt and a su bs e qu e nt c ountr

y pr of ile in aff irming de nial of re lief. 24 I &NDec . at 190-91. This court has upheld numerous de cisions of theNo. 08-4594

Zheng v. Holder

- 8 - BIA based in part or in whole on simil ar St ate Depar tment reports. See, e .g. , Huang , 523 F.3d at 652- 54 ; Hu v. Holde r , 318 F. App’ x 348 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2009) (unpublis hed). F inally , Z hengargues that the I J an d the B I A fa iled to disti ng uish betwee n forc ed abor tion and forc ed sterilization. Assuming the d i stinction is m ater ial within the context of Zhe ng ’s application, our review of the
rec ord conf

irms that the I J an d BI A bot h treated Z heng ’s application as one base d on forc ed sterilization. L ike the pet i t ioner in In re J -W -S- , Z henghas fa iled to establish with recor d evidenc e that U. S.- bo rn c hil dr e n w ill be c ounte d und e r C hin a ’s one -c hil d p oli c y , o r t hat th e pa re nts of mul tip le U.S.-born childre n have a ny objective r eason to fe ar they will be persecute d or t ortured. Whi le there is some evidence that Z heng may fac e economic penalties upon her r eturn, ther e is no evidenc e that such pena lties will be so draconia n as to rise to the leve l of perse cution or torture
.

III Acco rd i n gl y , for the r easons se t forth above , we DI SM ISS Z he ng ’s pe tit ion ins of a r a s it seeks r eview of the BI A’s decision as t o whether she t imely made a claim for asylum. I n all other respe cts, we DENY Z heng ’s petition.