N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT Q IAO L I Z H E N G , Pe titione r, v. L O RE T T A E . L YNCH , Attor ne y G e ne r al, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73436 Age n c y No. A075-822-495 M E M O RANDUM *

Q IAO L I Z H E N G , Pe titione r, v. L O RE T T A E . L YNCH , Attor ne y G e ne r al, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71958 Age n c y No. A075-822-495

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d and Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 5, 2016 

# F IL ED F EB 04 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.pa ge 2 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W AL L ACE , K O Z INSKI and O ’SCANNL AIN , C irc uit Judge s. 1. “ [T] o obta in judic ia l re ve rsa l of the B IA’ s de te rm ination, [a pe titione r] m ust show tha

t the e vide nc e he pre se nte d wa s so c om pe lling tha

t no re a sona

ble fa c t finde r c ould fa il to find the re q uisitefe ar of pe rse c ution.” INS v. Elia s Za c aria s, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992). A withholding-of-re m ova l pe tition m

ust e sta blish tha t it is “m ore like ly

tha n not tha t the a lie n would besubje c t to pe rse c ution.” INS v. Ste vic , 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984). The re c ord he re doe sn’ t c o m

pe l a finding tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not Zhe ng would bepe rse c ute d if re m ove d to C hina

or tha t the C hine se gove rnm e nt would torture he r or a c quie sc e in he r torture . Zhe ng pre s e nte d two a ne c dota l insta

nc e s of a forc e d ste riliz ation and a forc e d a b ortion. B ut the re c ord indic ate s tha t in m ost insta

nc e s viola tions of C hina ’ s one -c hild polic y

re sult in fina

n c ia l pe na ltie s. Zhe ng didn’ t produc e e vide nc e showing tha

t a ny suc h fe e s would re sult in more tha n a “ m ode ra te e c onom ic im

pa c t . ” In re J-W -S, 24 I. & N. De c . 185, 191 (B IA 2007). Thus the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s didn’ t c om m it re ve rsible e rror in de ny ing Zhe ng’ s a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l .pa ge 3

2. A m otion to re m and is subje c t to the sam e re q uire m e nts a s a

m otion to re ope n . R odrigue z v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th C ir. 1987). “ A m otion to re ope n proc e e d ings sha ll not begrante d unle ss it a ppe ars to the B o ard tha

t e vide nc e sought to be

offe re d is m ate ria l a

nd wa s not a

va ila b le an d c ould not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d

or pre s e nte d at

the form e r he aring . . . .” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1). The B IA didn’ t a

buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t the doc um e nts Zhe ng pre s e nte d we re pre viously ava ila ble . M ost of the s e doc um e nts pre date Zhe ng’ s im m igration c ourt he aring. The one ne w doc um e nt, the 2010 Hum an R ights R e port, doe sn’ t provide any a dditiona l, m at e ria l inform ation tha t wa sn’ t a lre a dy re fle c t e d in the2009 Hum an R ights Re port. 3. Eve n if c ounse l h a d pe rform e d diffe re ntly and submitte d the a dditional e vide nc e pre se n te d by

Zhe ng in he r m otion to re ope n, the a dditiona l e vide nc e wouldn’ t ha

ve unde rm ine d the B IA’ s origina l c onc l usion. Fe w pa ge s in the se a dditiona l doc um e nts a

re re late d dire c tly

to Zhe ng’ s c a se . Only

a ha ndful a ddre ss whe the r U.S. born c hildre n are c ounte d towa rd the one -c h ild polic y . M ore o ve r, e ve n the se doc um e nts a sse rt tha t viola tions of theone -c hild polic y re sult in fine s , and a dvise ste riliz ation only for the c ouple tha

t “ d e c ide [s] not to give

birth to more c hildre n.” The se a dditiona l doc um e nts fa il to show it is m o re like ly tha n notpa ge 4

Zhe ng would be forc e fully ste riliz e d. B e c a

use Zhe ng c a

n ’ t e sta blish pre judic e with this additiona l e vide nc e , she c ouldn’ t ha ve pre va i le d in he r ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im . Se e R oja s -Garc ia v. Ashc roft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th C ir. 2003). The re fore , the B IA didn’ t a buse its disc re tion in deny ing the m otion to re ope n . DE NIE D.