Zheng v. Sessions

16-1182-ag Zheng v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 611 064 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 ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SHENG ZHENG, Petitioner, v. No. 16-1182-ag JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEARING FOR PETITIONER: TROY NADER MOSLEMI, Esq., Queens, New York. APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT: SUNAH LEE, Trial Attorney (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Sheng Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Sheng Zheng, No. A205 611 064 (B.I.A. Mar. 28, 2016), aff’g No. A205 611 064 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 19, 2014). Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness,” Wangchuck v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006), applying well-established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition. Zheng seeks review of the agency’s decision that he failed to demonstrate a well- founded fear of future persecution, which is required in the absence of any allegation of past persecution. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 2008); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). To carry this burden, Zheng had to show “a reasonable possibility []he will be singled out for persecution” or “‘a pattern or practice in his . . . country of nationality . . . of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to [him] . . .’” Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 ...

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