Shuyuan Feng v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHUYUAN FENG; ANYA YU; MENG No. 15-71175 YU, Agency Nos. A200-149-847 Petitioners, A200-149-848 A200-149-846 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. MENG YU; SHUYUAN FENG; ANYA No. 15-72958 YU, Agency Nos. A200-149-846 Petitioners, A200-149-847 A200-149-848 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Argued and Submitted February 5, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Shuyuan Feng and Meng Yu and their daughter Anya Yu, citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), as well as the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ subsequent motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petitions. 1. Petitioners first contend that Feng’s 2009 abortion was forced and therefore constitutes past persecution. If an applicant for asylum “has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization . . . [she] shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(B). This court has recognized that “‘forced’ . . . includes compelling, obliging, or constraining by mental, moral, or circumstantial means, in addition to physical restraint.” Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). In this case, however, family planning officials never knew about the 2009 pregnancy and their 2007 threat was too attenuated from the 2009 pregnancy to constitute force. There is no record evidence of other specific coercive acts. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 2 341 F.3d 1015, 1018, 1020 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s conclusion that Feng’s 2009 abortion was not forced. Yu and Anya do not contend that they were subject to past persecution other than the 2009 abortion. Substantial evidence therefore supports the agency’s finding that Yu and Anya have not demonstrated past persecution. He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014). 2. Petitioners also contend that they have a well-founded fear of future economic persecution because the family will face sanctions for violating China’s family planning policy. An asylum applicant may establish a well-founded fear by pointing to “credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.” Rusak v. Holder, 734 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Economic persecution must be “severe”; it is deprivation “above and beyond . . . [the] mere loss of social advantages.” Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 173 (BIA 2007). An applicant who has violated China’s family planning policy can demonstrate a well-founded fear with evidence of “current local family ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals