16-3559 Zheng v. Whitaker BIA Lamb, IJ A088 372 034 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 1st day of February, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LISHUANG ZHENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3559 17 NAC 18 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Keith I. 28 McManus, Assistant Director; John 29 B. Holt, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 06152016-10 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Lishuang Zheng, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 29, 10 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the May 22, 2015, decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Lishuang Zheng, No. A088 372 034 (B.I.A. 14 Sept. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A088 372 034 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 15 May 22, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s 18 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 20 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 21 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 22 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 23 Zheng applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and 24 CAT relief, asserting that she suffered past persecution when 2 07102018-8 1 family planning officials threatened to arrest her in order 2 to compel her to use an intrauterine device (“IUD”) and that 3 she fears forced sterilization based on the birth of her 4 second child in the United States in violation of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals