Zhantiao Cheng v. Sessions

16-3506 Zhantiao Cheng v. Sessions BIA Schoppert, IJ A205 614 660 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 11th day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZHANTIAO CHENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3506 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Russell J.E. 27 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Kristin Moresi, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 Zhantiao Cheng, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 30, 7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a July 27, 2015, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhantiao Cheng’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhantiao 11 Cheng, No. A 205 614 660 (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A 12 205 614 660 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 27, 2015). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 only the IJ’s eligibility determination explicitly affirmed 17 by the BIA, not the IJ’s alternative discretionary denial of 18 asylum. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 19 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well 20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); See Y.C. v. 21 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332-33 (2d Cir. 2013). 2 1 Zhantiao Cheng alleged that he had a well-founded fear 2 of future persecution based on his participation in the China 3 Democracy Party (“CDP”) in the United States. He had the 4 burden to show that the claim was ...

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