The Honor able L awr ence E. Kahn, United States District Court for the Nor thern * District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. Th e Cle rk

of Court is d ir e c te d to ame nd

the of fi c ia l c a pti on in t his c a se to c on fo rm

to ** the listing of the pa

rties above

. Eric H. H older, Jr., is automatically substitut ed as the responde nt in this case pursuant *** to Fede ral Rule of A

ppellate Proc edure 43(c) (2). 07-3 970 -ag, 08-250 4-ag Z h en g v . H older
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y FE D ER A L R U LE O F A PP EL LA TE PR O C ED U R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER”) . A PARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 15 day

of January , two thousand and ten. th P r e s e n t : G U ID O C A LA B R E S I,

RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, Cir c uit Judg e s. LAWRENCE E. KAHN, *

District J udg e.

_________________________________________________ SHU XIANG Z HENG , ** Petitioner,

-v - (0 7 -3 9 7 0 -a g, 0 8 -2 5 0 4 -a g) E R IC H

. H O LD E R , J R

. , A T T O R N E Y G E N E RA L, *** Re sp on de nt. Appea ringfor Petitioner: Richard Ta rzia, Be lle Mead, N J Appea ringfor Responde nt: Nairi M. Simonian, Civi l Division, U.S . Depa rtment of Just ice, Washington, DCZ he nga lso argue s th at th e B IA e rr e d in c on c lud ingthat th e “ fi ne s o r o the r e c on omi c 1 penalties” to which she would be subjected “ do not rise to the level of perse cution.” A moneta

ry 2 Petition for reviewof an or der of the B oard of

Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”)

. ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e pe tit ion fo r r e vie w i n 0 7- 39 70 -a gis GR ANTED and the pe tition for revie w in 08-2504-a gin DE NI ED a s mo ot. Petitioner Shu XiangZ heng(“Z heng ”) se eks re view of a n August 27, 2007, order a nd d ec i s i o no f t h e B IA, v ac at i n g th e J an u ary 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , o rd er

an d d ec i s i o no f t h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge (I J Paul A. DeF onzo) gr antingpetitioner’s a pplication for a sylum. Zhe ngalso seeks r eview of a May 9, 2008, order

and dec ision of the BIA deny ing he r motion to reopen he r depor tation proce eding s. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and specific ation of issues for r eview. This case is one of a numbe r of c ases that the Sec ond Circuit remande d to the BIA so that it could develop standa

rds for when a pe titioner has established a well-founde d fea

r of perse cution – namely

forc ed sterilization – as a re sult of violating China’s fa mily planning policies. The B IA re cently develope d such standar ds in three r elated c ases, includingMatter of J -W-S-, 24 I &NDec . 185 (B IA 2007), a ll of which we upheld in J ian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F .3 d 1 38 , 1 63 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ). Af te r t he B IA i ssu e d it s d e c isi on s a nn ounc ing

the ne w s tand ard s, i tr e a f f i r m e d i t s v a c at e ur

o f th e I J’ s g r an to f

a s yl umi nth i s c a s e . T h e B IAf o un d th atM at t e r

o fJW-S- was direc tly

on point and that Z heng ’s ca se could be resolved w ithout remandingto the I J

. Z hengnow see ks review

of the B IA’s dec ision. When the BIA does not adopt the de cision of the I J to any extent, we revie w only

the de c isi on of the B IA. Se e Ya

n Ch e n v . G on zal e s, 41 7 F .3 d 2 68 , 2 71 (2 d Ci r. 20 05 ). We a ssume petitioner to be c redible “ beca use the I J found [her] to be such and the B IA did not disturb that fi n d i n g. ” A l i b as i c v . M uk as ey , 5 4 7 F. 3 d 7 8 , 8 4 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). W e r ev i ew fa ctu al fi n d i n gs under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U .S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B ); see a lso Corovic v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 90, 95 ( 2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of lawand the application of la

w to undisputed fac t. Salimatou Bah v. Mukase y , 529 F.3d 99, 110 ( 2d Cir. 2008). Z hengfirst argues that the B IA held her to an “e x cee dingly

high sta ndard of proof” by requiringher to show a

national policy

of for ced ste riliz ation, as opposed to a loc al policy in her h o me p r o v in c e o f

F u ji an . We r e c e n tl y

r e je c te d th is ar gume n t. Se e Sh a o , 5 4 6 F

. 3 d at 1 6 3 ( “ We ide nti fy no le g a l e rr or

in [the B IA’ s] ana ly sis and no pr e jud ic e to [p e tit ion e r]’ s a

bil ity to demonstrate a

rea sonable possibility

of enf orce ment amounting to pe rsec ution at the local level.”) . As in Shao, the BIA conc luded in this case that “ the evidenc e of r ecor d did not demonstrate that the Chinese Gover nment has a national policy of re quiringforc ed sterilization of a pa rent who r eturns with childre n born in the United States,” a nd that, further

more, Z heng ha d p re se nte d n o e vid e nc e that sh e fa c e d a pa rt ic ula ri zed ri sk on a c c ount o f t

he loc a l po lic ie s in F uji an. Z he ng ’s argume nt t hat sh e wa s r e qu ir e d to sh owa natio na l po lic y

is w ith out me ri t. 1fine only

rises to the leve l of perse cution if it would cause “ sever e ec onomic disadvantag e.” Matter of T-Z -, 24 I &NDec . 163, 170-75 (B IA 2007); see also Guan Shan L iao v. U.S. Dep’ t of J ustice, 293 F .3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002). Though the evidenc e orig inally submitt ed by

Z heng would not have be en suff icient to require a findingthat the fine w ould cause such prof ound disadvantag e, the ne w evidenc e in the Ji Fu Chen a ffidavit ca sts the previous evidenc e in a ne w light. Unde r the c ircumstance s, on remand the ag ency should consider the que stion of whether the fi ne s, e tc ., ri se to t

he le ve l of

pe rs e c uti on

in l ig ht o f t

he Che n a ff

ida vit

. As with the ec onomic evidenc e re fer red to in footnote 1 supra , the more g ener alized 2 evidenc e that wa s submitt ed, thoug h inadequate in itself, should be rec onsidered in lig ht of the specific evidenc e g iven by the J i Fu Chen a ffidavit, discussed be low.

3 Z hengalso contends that the B IA fa iled to consider mate rial evide nce on r emand that demonstrates that she is at risk for f orce d sterilization i f she is re turned to China. “[W] here the B IA h a s g ive n r e a so ne d c on sid e ratio n to the pe tit ion , a nd ma de a de qu ate fi nd ing s, it [n e e d n ot] expressly parse or re fute on the r ecor d eac h individual argument or piec e of e vidence offe red by the petitioner.” Wei GuangWang v. B IA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (interna l quotations omitted). Moreove r, we “pre sume that [the ag ency] has taken into acc ount all of the evide nce befor e [it] , unless the re cord c ompellingly sug g ests otherwise.” Xio J i Chen v. U.S. Dept’t of J ustice, 471 F .3d 315, 336 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006). Mo st o f t he e vid e nc e Z he ngc ite s in he r b ri e f w a s n ot m ate ri a l to he r c la im b e c a us e it e ith e r d id n ot d isc us s th e us e of fo rc e d a bo rt ion s a nd ste ri lizatio ns in e nf

or c ingthe fa

mil y planningpolicy

or re fer ence d unattributed re ports of for ced a bortions and sterilizations of ind ivi du a ls i n p ro vin c e s o the r t ha n Z he ng ’s ho me pr ov inc e of F uji an. Th e B IA h a d p re vio us ly found almost identical evide nce insuff icient to show a we ll-founded f ear of per secution. See Matter of J -W-S-, 24 I &NDec . at 192. Althoug h the B IA did not refe renc e ea ch and e very piece o f e v id e n c e in

th e r e c o r d , it

e xp la in e d

th at s u c he v id e n c e , in c lu d in g“ c o un tr y c o n d it io nr e p o rt[ s ]” and “ oth e r d oc ume nta

ry e vid e nc e su c h a s Co ngre ssi on a l r e po rt s, ” wa s in su ff ic ie nt f or the same re a so ns state d in

Matte r o f J- W-S- . With o ne e xce pti on , th is w a s mo re tha n s uf fi c ie nt t o discharg e B IA’s duty

to consider the e vidence in the rec ord. 2 The one exception is the affidavit of J in Fu Chen, whic h the B IA did not refe renc e or expli citly consider in its dec ision. The aff idavit states that Chen and his wife , both natives and citizens of China from Fujian pr ovince, r esided in Japan betwee n 1998 and 2003, duringwhich time his wife g ave bir

th to one g irl and one boy . He f urther states that afte r his family was “ sent back” to China, their “villag e committee a nd [t heir] town gove rnment ca dres c ame to [their] ho us e and

sa id t hat [th e y ] al re a dy

g ave bir th t o tw o c hil dr e n, and

vio late d Ch ine se F amil y Planning Policy ,” and told him and his wife that “[e]i ther one of [them] must have a steriliz ation o p e r at i o n . ” Af

e wm o n th s l at e r , “ F am i l y P l an n i n go f

f i c i a l s f o r c i b l y t o o k [ h i m ] t o C h an gLe Family Planning Station and [he] had a sterilization operation.” Un lik e the oth e r e vid e nc e pr e se nte d to the B IA o n r e mand , th e Che n a ff ida vit pr ov ide s a specific , detailed e x ample of a pare nt returningfrom abr oad with two childre n to Fujian provinc eZ hengalso argues that the B IA’s fa ctual findingwith respec t to her risk of f orce d 3 sterilization was not supported by substantial evidence . Be cause we r emand to the B IA for rec onsideration of Z heng ’s application, we do not rea ch this question. 4 who was subjec ted to forc ed sterilization. Zhe ngappea rs to be similarly

situated to Chen as they are bo th f ro m F uji an p ro vin c e and

e a c h h a d tw o c hil dr e n a

br oa d. Se e Jian

Xi ngHu angv. I

NS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (evide nce of forc ed sterilization of an individual in simi lar circ umstances is re levant to question of we ll-founded f ear). It was pre cisely

this sort of evidence of loca l enforc ement ef

forts that the B IA found lac king in Matter of J-W-S -. See Shao, 546 F .3d at 165-66. Give n that the B IA conc luded that Z henghad fa iled to adduce any evidenc e beyond “g ener alized statements” that she w ould be subjecte d to some form of punishment upon her re tur n, we c ann ot b e sure that th e B IA a de qu ate ly c on sid e re d th e Che n a ff

ida vit in r e a c hin gits decision. See Jorg e-Tzoc v. Gonzales, 435 F .3d 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2006); Shou YungGuo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 109, 115 ( 2d Cir. 2006). The Chen a ffidavit wa s submitt ed to B IA upon re mand from the Sec ond Circuit pursuant to our rema

nd order and ther efor e wa s not part of the r ecor d befor e the I J . See Stipulation and Orde r of Settlement and D ismiss al, No. 04-4139- ag(Oc t. 11, 2006) (“E ither par ty may file a motion to remand for c onsideration of suppleme ntal evidenc e that complies with all of the applicable regulations.). The B IA is not permitted to eng ag e in independe nt fac tfinding or consider e vidence that is not already in the rec ord. See 8 C.F .R. 1003.1(d)(3) (iv); B elortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 619, 625 ( 2d Cir. 2007). When further fac tfinding is re quired, “ the appropr iate cour se is rema nd to the I J .” Xian T uan Ye v. Dep' t of Homeland Sec ., 446 F.3d 289, 29 6 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 6) . B e c a

us e the Che n a ff

ida vit re pr e se nts mate ri a l e vid e nc e dir e c tly re le va nt t o Z heng ’s claim of pe rsec ution, the BIA er red in not re mandingto the I J for suppleme ntation of the fac tual rec ord. We theref ore GR ANT the petition for re view in 07-3970-a gand REMAND t o th e B IA for c onsideration of the Chen aff idavit and furthe r deve lopment of the fa ctual re cord. 3 Con se qu e ntl y , Z he ng ’s pe tit ion fo r r e vie w o f t

he de nia l of

he r m oti on

to r e op e n in

08 -2 50 4- a gis DE NI ED as moot. See Koudria chova v. G onzales, 490 F.3d 255, 264 (2d Cir. 2007)

.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :_______________________________