17-320 Zhi Hui Zhu v. Barr BIA Chew, IJ A205 621 388 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 12th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZHI HUI ZHU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-320 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Derek 27 C. Julius, Assistant Director; 28 Patricia E. Bruckner, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 33 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 Zhi Hui Zhu, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 19, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a February 29, 2016, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhu’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhi Hui 11 Zhu, No. A 205 621 388 (B.I.A. Jan. 19, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 12 621 388 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 29, 2016). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 17 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 18 the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and 19 its legal conclusions de novo. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 20 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 21 Zhu had the burden of proving a well-founded fear of 22 persecution on account of his political activism. 8 U.S.C. 2 1 §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To do this, he was 2 required to show that he subjectively feared persecution and 3 that his fear was objectively reasonable. Ramsameachire v. 4 Ashcroft, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals