17-553 Zhen v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A205 382 206 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 TO 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 15th day of October, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WANG ZHEN, AKA WANG ZHENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-553 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Office of Michael 24 Brown, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 28 Assistant Director; Robbin K. 29 Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Wang Zhen, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 3, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 11, 2016, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhen’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wang 11 Zhen, No. A205 382 206 (B.I.A. Feb. 3, 2017), aff’g No. 12 A205 382 206 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 11, 2016). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 14 and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 16 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and review only the 17 ground for decision on which the BIA relied—Zhen’s failure 18 to meet his burden of proof. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 19 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 20 applicable standards of review are well established. See 21 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 22 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). For the reasons that follow, we 23 conclude that the agency did not err in determining that 2 1 Zhen failed to demonstrate past persecution or a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals