Zhu v. Sessions

16-2012 Zhu v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 240 875 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. 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 25th day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ YIN ZHU, Petitioner, v. 16-2012 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Igor G. Kuperman, Stamford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Yin Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 23, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 21, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yin Zhu, No. A205 240 875 (B.I.A. May 23, 2016), aff’g No. A205 240 875 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 21, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we assume credibility and address only whether Zhu met his burden of demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271-72 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 Zhu did not allege any past harm, so to obtain asylum he had the burden to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, which is a “subjective fear that is objectively reasonable.” Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277, 284 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (requiring asylum applicant to “show a ...

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