17-2476 Zheng v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A205 611 211 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 19th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JINWEN ZHENG, AKA JIN WEN ZHENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2476 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 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; Kohsei Ugumori, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; David 28 Kim, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Jinwen Zheng, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 20, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 28, 2016, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zheng’s application 9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jinwen Zheng, No. 11 A 205 611 211 (B.I.A. July 20, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 611 211 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 28, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and address only the 17 grounds for denial relied on by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 19 Accordingly, we address only the agency’s determination that, 20 assuming credibility, Zheng failed to establish a well- 21 founded fear of persecution. The applicable standards of 2 1 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 2 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 3 Zheng became a Christian while in the United States and 4 alleged a fear ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals