UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1801

CAI YAN ZHENG; HANG LIN,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: January 15, 2013 Decided: February 13, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New 

Jersey, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Rachel 

Browning, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cai Yan Zheng and Hang Lin, natives and citizens of 

the People’s Republic of China, petition for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing their appeal 

from the immigration judge’s order denying their applications 

for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition for 

review.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorizes 

the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a) (2006). The INA defines a refugee as a person 

unwilling or unable to return to her native country “because of 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). 

“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death, 

torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one 

of the enumerated grounds . . . .” Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 

F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). An individual who has been forced to submit 

to an abortion or sterilization procedure is “deemed to have 

been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person 

who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to 

undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such 

failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well 
3

founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (2006). 

An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility 

for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 

2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2012), and can establish 

refugee status based on past persecution in her native country 

on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) 

(2012).* Without regard to past persecution, an alien can also 

establish refugee status by showing a well-founded fear of

future persecution based on a protected ground. Ngarurih v. 

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). The well-founded 

fear standard contains both a subjective and an objective 

component. The objective element requires a showing of 

specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in 

like circumstances to fear persecution. Gandziami-Mickhou v. 

Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). “The subjective 

component can be met through the presentation of candid, 

credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of 

persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of 

the circumstances and be validated with specific, concrete facts 

. . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension.” Qiao Hua 

 * The Petitioners do not claim they suffered past 

persecution.
4

Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or 

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 

evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of 

fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 

compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 

(2006). This court will reverse the Board only if “the 

evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. 

INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). When both the 

Board and the immigration judge issue decisions in an 

immigration case, this Court will review both decisions. 

Kourouma v. Holder, 588 F.3d 234, 239-40 (4th Cir. 2009).

An applicant’s credible testimony “may be sufficient 

to sustain [her] burden of proof without corroboration.” 

Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 601 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “However, even for credible 

testimony, corroboration may be required when it is reasonable 

to expect such proof and there is no reasonable explanation for 

its absence.” Chen Lin-Jian v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 191-92 

(4th Cir. 2007). 
5

“Regardless of [China’s] policy generally prohibiting 

the birth of additional children following the birth of a son, 

to be eligible for [asylum] relief the respondent must also meet 

her burden of demonstrating a reasonable possibility that 

Chinese Government officials would enforce the family planning 

policy against her through means constituting persecution.” 

Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 211 (B.I.A.

2010), abrogated on other grounds, Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 

F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). The applicant must show that there is 

a government policy implicated by the births at issue, that the 

births in question are a violation of that policy and there is a 

reasonable possibility that government officials would enforce 

the policy against the petitioner through means constituting 

persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 142-43 

(2d Cir. 2008).

The Board and the immigration judge relied upon 

reports issued by the State Department in support of the finding 

that the Petitioners did not show an objective well-founded fear 

of persecution. There was no support in the reports for the 

conclusion that the Petitioners risk being forcibly sterilized 

because they had two children in the United States. While they 

may face a fine, there was no evidence to compel the conclusion 

that the fine would be so severe that it would be tantamount to 
6

persecution. We conclude that there was no error in relying 

upon the State Department’s reports. 

A State Department report on country conditions is 

highly probative evidence in a well-founded fear case. 

Reliance upon these reports makes sense because this 

inquiry is directly within the expertise of the 

Department of State. . . .

Absent powerful contradictory evidence, the existence 

of a State Department report supporting the BIA’s 

judgment will generally suffice to uphold the Board’s 

decision. Any other rule would invite courts to 

overturn the foreign affairs assessments of the 

executive branch.

Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 542-43 (4th Cir. 1999). The 

Board relies upon the State Department’s reports because “they 

are based on the collective expertise and experience of the 

Department of State which has diplomatic and consular 

representatives throughout the world.” Matter of H-L-H- & Z-YZ-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 213.

The Petitioners contend that neither the Board nor the 

immigration judge considered the documentary evidence they 

submitted. In this instance, the immigration judge detailed the 

contents of the administrative record and then stated that all 

of the evidence was considered. The Petitioners fail to point 

to any evidence that seriously undermines the State Department’s 

reports regarding the treatment of persons who return to China 

after giving birth to two children overseas.
7

We also conclude there was no error in the immigration 

judge’s and Board’s decision to give little weight to the more 

localized evidence, such as the affidavits from friends and 

family and the village committees’ responses to inquiries. The 

evidence was unnotarized and in some instances unsigned. Also, 

some of the evidence did not indicate that the Petitioners would 

be forcibly sterilized or heavily fined. While some of the 

evidence described instances of forced abortions or 

sterilizations, there was nothing that could be related to the 

Petitioners’ immediate situation. 

We also reject the Petitioners’ argument that their 

burden of proof was too high. The State Department’s reports 

were highly probative evidence that went against their claims 

for asylum and withholding of removal. The Petitioners failed 

to submit sufficient evidence that compels a different result. 

Because substantial evidence supports the denial of 

asylum and withholding of removal and the record does not compel 

a different result, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED