13-962

Zhang v. Lynch

BIA

Nelson, IJ

A200 172 732

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 14th 4 day of July, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 PETER W. HALL,

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 JUNLI ZHANG, AKA JUN LI ZHANG,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 13-962

17 NAC

18

19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23 

24 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, New

25 York.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

28 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant

29 Director; Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,

2 United States Department of Justice,

3 Washington, D.C.

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

8 is DENIED.

9 Junli Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s

10 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 21, 2013,

11 order of the BIA affirming the September 1, 2011, decision

12 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, denying her

13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Junli Zhang, No.

15 A200 172 732 (B.I.A. Feb. 21, 2013), aff’g No. A200 172 732

16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 1, 2011). We assume the

17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

18 procedural history in this case.

19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions

20 “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d

21 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review

22 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see

23 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.

24 2009). 

2
1 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish

2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear

3 of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To

4 establish a well-founded fear of a forced abortion or

5 sterilization under a coercive population control policy, an

6 applicant is required to “(1) identif[y] the government

7 policy implicated by the births at issue, (2) establish[]

8 that government officials would view the births as a

9 violation of the policy, and (3) demonstrate[] a reasonable

10 possibility that government officials would enforce the

11 policy against [the applicant] through means constituting

12 persecution.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 143

13 (2d Cir. 2008). 

14 The agency did not err in concluding that Zhang failed

15 to demonstrate the objective reasonableness of her fear of

16 harm under China’s coercive population control policy. As

17 the agency found, she did not establish that family planning

18 officials would consider her to be in violation of China’s

19 one child policy, because she only has one child with her

20 husband. See id. Her assertion that she and her husband

21 want to have a second child in the future is speculative and

22 insufficient to establish her eligibility for asylum. See

3
1 Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). 

2 Accordingly, the agency reasonably denied Zhang asylum,

3 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because those claims

4 were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.

5 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). We need not

6 review the agency’s alternative bases for denying relief.

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

14 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

15 FOR THE COURT: 

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

17

18

19

4