NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 21-1453 _______________ HUI YUN ZHOU, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. 096-241-539) Immigration Judge: Donald Vincent Ferlise _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a): January 19, 2022 _______________ Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 25, 2022) ______________ OPINION ______________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. PORTER, Circuit Judge. Hui Yun Zhou, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order refusing to reopen her deportation proceeding. We will deny her petition for review. I A Zhou came from China as a visitor two decades ago. Zhou overstayed her visa, so she was placed in removal proceedings. She asked for political asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Zhou v. Att’y Gen., 206 F. App’x 237, 237 (3d Cir. 2006). To show she was eligible for asylum as a political refugee, Zhou claimed she was forced to abort a pregnancy under China’s family planning policies and would risk involuntary sterilization and a fine if she returned to China. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Zhou had trouble keeping her story straight, though. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that heard her case denied all relief, ordered her deportation, and found that Zhou had “deliberately fabricated” her asylum claim based on her lack of credibility and demeanor as well as contradictions in the record evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20(a)(1). As the IJ warned Zhou, this last finding would make Zhou “permanently ineligible for any benefits under” the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Zhou appealed to the BIA, challenging among other things the IJ’s conclusion that her asylum case was deliberately fabricated. But when it came to briefing the appeal, her attorney, Tahir Mella, barely mentioned that separate issue. Mella’s only reference to the 2 deliberate-fabrication finding was a fleeting assertion that the IJ had made “no finding that the abortion certificate was fabricated” and “no finding that [Zhou’s] testimony regarding her forced abortion was inconsistent or fabricated.” A.R. 149. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s deportation order and dismissed Zhou’s appeal in 2005. The BIA specifically affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that Zhou had deliberately fabricated her asylum claim. With that “final determination,” the IJ’s finding that Zhou “knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum” became “effective.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Going forward, Zhou would be ineligible for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Zhou petitioned for review, represented by a new attorney, Marco Pignone. Zhou, 206 F. App’x at 237. We denied the petition. Id. at 239. We noted that “the petition for review recites that Zhou seeks review of all three aspects of the BIA decision: denial of asylum; withholding of removal . . .; and relief under the CAT.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals