Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Jian Li Zheng's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to uphold the Immigration Judge's denial of Zheng's request for asylum and related relief and order of removal to China. The Court agreed with the BIA that even if Zheng had provided evidence corroborating his claims, he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Specifically, the brief beating Zheng endured when officials took his wife for a forced abortion did not rise to the level of persecution, and Zheng remained in China for a year after the incident without further problems. As Zheng did not qualify for asylum, he also did not meet the higher

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    29 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Jian Li Zheng's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to uphold the Immigration Judge's denial of Zheng's request for asylum and related relief and order of removal to China. The Court agreed with the BIA that even if Zheng had provided evidence corroborating his claims, he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Specifically, the brief beating Zheng endured when officials took his wife for a forced abortion did not rise to the level of persecution, and Zheng remained in China for a year after the incident without further problems. As Zheng did not qualify for asylum, he also did not meet the higher

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-03-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1177

    Original Title

    Jian Zheng v. Atty Gen USA, 3rd Cir. (2011)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Jian Li Zheng's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to uphold the Immigration Judge's denial of Zheng's request for asylum and related relief and order of removal to China. The Court agreed with the BIA that even if Zheng had provided evidence corroborating his claims, he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Specifically, the brief beating Zheng endured when officials took his wife for a forced abortion did not rise to the level of persecution, and Zheng remained in China for a year after the incident without further problems. As Zheng did not qualify for asylum, he also did not meet the higher

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    29 views5 pages

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Jian Li Zheng's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to uphold the Immigration Judge's denial of Zheng's request for asylum and related relief and order of removal to China. The Court agreed with the BIA that even if Zheng had provided evidence corroborating his claims, he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Specifically, the brief beating Zheng endured when officials took his wife for a forced abortion did not rise to the level of persecution, and Zheng remained in China for a year after the incident without further problems. As Zheng did not qualify for asylum, he also did not meet the higher

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-1177
    ___________
    JIAN LI ZHENG, a/k/a Seo Won,
    Petitioner
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Respondent
    ____________________________________
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    (Agency No. A099-570-499)
    Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry Dogin
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    March 16, 2011
    Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and WEIS, Circuit Judges
    Opinion filed: March 17, 2011
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jian Li Zheng petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    (BIA) decision, which upheld the Immigration Judges (IJ) order denying Zhengs
    request for asylum and related relief, and ordering his removal to China. For the reasons
    that follow, we will deny the petition for review.

    I
    Zheng, a citizen of China, entered the United States illegally in 2004. He
    was placed in removal proceedings, where he conceded removability, but sought asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
    Zheng claimed that he suffered persecution when Chinese authorities beat him for
    intervening when they attempted to terminate his wifes unauthorized pregnancy.
    Zheng testified that he and his wife married in 2000, and that they have one
    daughter, who was born in 2001. After the birth of their daughter, Zhengs wife was
    implanted with an IUD, and was required to attend regular checkups. During her January
    2002 checkup, at which the petitioner was not present, the doctor discovered that the
    wifes IUD had failed and that she was pregnant. She was forced to terminate the
    pregnancy, and was then refitted with an IUD.
    In 2003, Zheng and his wife hired a private doctor to remove the IUD
    because they intended to have another child. Zhengs wife became pregnant, and they
    went into hiding at his aunts house so that the wife could avoid her IUD checkups and
    keep the child. In October 2003, when Zhengs wife was about five months pregnant,
    officials visited the aunts house and conducted an inspection. The officials determined
    that Zhengs wife was pregnant without authorization, and attempted to take her into
    custody. Zheng stepped in front of his wife to protect her, but the officials grabbed his
    hands, beat him about the head, shoulder, and chest, and then pushed his head against the
    wall. The beating lasted a few minutes. The officials took Zhengs wife to the hospital,
    2

    where she was forced to endure a second abortion. Although Zheng immediately
    followed his wife to the hospital, he was not allowed to see her until the next morning,
    after the abortion was performed.
    With regard to the beating he endured, Zheng testified that, at an
    unspecified time, he sought treatment for the injuries he sustained while trying to protect
    his wife, and that the treatment took between two and three hours. Notably, although he
    stated that he had obtained his medical records from China, he never submitted them to
    support his claim for relief. In addition, although Zheng submitted letters from his aunt -who was present when his wife was taken away -- and his wife, Zhengs aunt did not
    mention at all that he was beaten for opposing the family planning officials, and Zhengs
    wife mentioned only that Zheng tried to stop them but was beaten down. A.R. 294.
    Further, Zheng did not obtain medical documentation proving that his wife endured any
    abortions, although he did submit records pertaining to her IUD.
    The IJ denied relief, reasoning that Zheng failed to corroborate his
    allegations that his wife was subjected to forced abortions and that he was assaulted for
    trying to prevent one such abortion. The BIA agreed, and held that, even if Zheng had
    produced corroborating evidence, he would have failed to establish that he suffered
    persecution as a result of his resistance to Chinas family planning policies. The BIA
    further reasoned that Zheng did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
    persecution, given that he remained in China for one year without further incident.
    Zheng filed a timely petition for review of the Boards decision.
    3

    II
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a). Because the BIA
    issued its own opinion, we review its decision rather than that of the IJ. See Li v. Atty
    Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 2005). However, we also look to the decision of the IJ
    to the extent that the BIA deferred to or adopted the IJs reasoning. See Chavarria v.
    Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006). We review the Agencys factual
    determinations for substantial evidence, and will uphold such determinations unless any
    reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a contrary conclusion. See Fiadjoe
    v. Atty Gen., 411 F.3d 135, 153 (3d Cir. 2005). Zheng challenges the BIAs decision in
    several respects. However, we need not consider all of his arguments because we agree
    with the BIA that, even if Zheng had presented evidence corroborating his claim that he
    resisted the family planning officials, he would not have established that he suffered
    persecution or that he harbors a well-founded fear of future persecution so as to qualify
    for asylum.
    Persecution includes threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic
    restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom. Fatin v. INS, 12
    F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993). However, it does not encompass all treatment that our
    society regards as unfair, unjust or even unlawful or unconstitutional. Id. Generally,
    isolated incidents that do not result in serious injury do not rise to the level of
    persecution. Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 615 (3d Cir. 2005). Zheng was beaten
    for a few minutes, and he suffered minor injuries. Although he required some medical
    4

    treatment, he was able to immediately follow the family planning officials to the hospital
    where they took his wife. We are not compelled to disagree with the Agencys
    conclusion that the assault he endured, though unfortunate, did not amount to
    persecution.
    To demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a fear of future persecution,
    an applicant must demonstrate that he has a genuine fear, and that a reasonable person in
    [his] circumstances would fear persecution if returned to [his] native country.
    Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir. 2003). To satisfy the objective
    prong, a petitioner must show that he would be individually singled out for persecution or
    demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly-situated individuals. See Lie
    v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir. 2005). The BIA reasoned that Zheng failed to
    make such a showing: aside from the beating he endured, he was never arrested or
    otherwise punished for resisting the family planning authorities, and he remained in
    China for a year without further incident. Zheng presents no reasons in his petition for
    review to question the Boards determination in that regard.
    Because Zheng was ineligible for asylum, we agree that he was also unable
    to meet the higher standard applicable to applications for withholding of removal. See
    Sioe Tjen Wong v. Atty Gen., 539 F.3d 225, 236-37 (3d Cir. 2008). Nor did he
    demonstrate eligibility for CAT protection. See Kamara v. Atty Gen., 420 F.3d 202,
    212-13 (3d Cir. 2005).
    Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.
    5

    You might also like