18-214 Zheng v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A089 254 139/140

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 21st day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NA ZHENG, JIN DE PAN, 14 Petitioners, 15 16 v. 18-214 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONERS: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jeffery R. 27 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Colette J. Winston, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 06152016-10 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 Petitioners Na Zheng and Jin De Pan, natives and citizens

6 of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a January

7 12, 2018, BIA decision that affirmed the April 11, 2017,

8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and

9 withholding of removal. In re Na Zheng, Jin De Pan, Nos.

10 A089 254 139/140 (B.I.A. Jan. 12, 2018), aff’g Nos. A089 254

11 139/140 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 11, 2017). We assume the

12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

13 history in this case. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the

14 BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v.

15 Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006).

16 Zheng applied for asylum and withholding of removal,

17 naming Pan as a derivative beneficiary, and asserting that

18 she fears persecution based on the birth of their children in

19 the United States in violation of China’s population control

20 program and her involvement with the Democratic Party of China

21 (“DPC”) in the United States. The applicable standards of

22 review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

23

(2d Cir. 2008).

2 06282019-5 1 For largely the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui

2 Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that

3 Zheng failed to satisfy her burden of proof as to her family

4 planning claim. See

. The agency reasonably

5 concluded that isolated reports of forced sterilizations that

6 lack details (such as those cited by Zheng) do not outweigh

7 significant country conditions evidence that enforcement

8 efforts typically involve economic incentives and penalties

9 rather than force. See Jian Hui Shao,

,

10 172.

11 The agency also did not err in finding that Zheng failed

12 to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account

13 of her pro-democracy activities in the United States. See

14 Y.C. v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2013). The

15 agency was not compelled to credit Zheng’s testimony,

16 unsupported by reliable evidence, that Chinese authorities

17 are aware of her activities in the United States. See

18 at 334. And the agency did not err in rejecting the

19 “suggestion that the Chinese government is aware of every

20 anti-Communist or pro-democracy piece of commentary published

21 online,” particularly when, as here, the articles include

22 only a name as identifying information. See

Nor did the

23 IJ abuse his discretion in declining to accept Zheng’s late-

3 06282019-5 1 filed evidence or witness testimony. See Dedji v. Mukasey,

2

(2d Cir. 2008).

3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

4 DENIED.

5 FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 7 Clerk of Court

4 06282019-5