Cen v. Bondi
This text of Cen v. Bondi (Cen v. Bondi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
22-6548 Cen v. Bondi BIA Zagzoug, IJ A215 738 453 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 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 for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 26th day of March, two thousand twenty-five. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNY CHIN, 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 ALISON J. NATHAN, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 JIANBIN CEN, 13 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. No. 22-6548 17 NAC 18 PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 1 2 FOR PETITIONER: Li Han, Flushing, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 5 Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior 6 Litigation Counsel; Paul Fiorino, Senior 7 Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration 8 Litigation, United States Department of 9 Justice, Washington, DC.
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
13 Petitioner Jianbin Cen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
14 China, seeks review of the November 21, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming an
15 immigration judge’s denial of Cen’s application for asylum, withholding of
16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianbin
17 Cen, No. A215 738 453 (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 2022), aff’g No. A215 738 453 (Immigr. Ct.
18 N.Y.C. Feb. 1, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history.
20 We review the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) as modified by the
21 BIA, which did not reach the IJ’s determination that Cen’s asylum claim was time-
22 barred. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
2 1 We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard
2 and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo. Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
3 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are
4 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
5 the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
6 An asylum applicant has the burden to show past persecution or a “well-
7 founded fear of persecution.” Id. § 1101(a)(42), see id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “[A]
8 person who has a well[-]founded fear that he . . . will be forced to undergo [an
9 involuntary sterilization] procedure” or be “subject to persecution for . . . refusal”
10 to undergo such a procedure “shall be deemed to have a well[-]founded fear of
11 persecution on account of political opinion.” Id. § 1101(a)(42). Where, as here,
12 an applicant alleges a fear of returning to China because he has violated the family
13 planning policy, the agency and the Court look to whether the “petitioner
14 (1) identified the government policy implicated by the births at issue,
15 (2) established that government officials would view the births as a violation of
16 the policy, and (3) demonstrated a reasonable possibility that government officials
17 would enforce the policy against petitioner through means constituting
18 persecution.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 142–43 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 1 The agency reasonably found that Cen failed to meet his burden of
2 establishing a well-founded fear of persecution. Chen did not identify or
3 document what the relevant family planning policies in China were or how they
4 were generally being enforced, nor did he provide reliable evidence that having a
5 child out of wedlock in the United States would violate or be perceived as violating
6 Chinese law or policy. See id. Instead, Cen relied on a document, purportedly
7 received from a Resident Committee in response to an inquiry by his father,
8 explaining that Cen would be denied household registry status for having a child
9 out of wedlock unless he underwent “temporary sterilization.” Certified Admin.
10 Rec. at 62. The agency was not required to credit this document. See Y.C. v.
11 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency’s
12 evaluation of the weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence.”).
13 The document was unsigned, and Cen did not produce the original document or
14 provide any evidence to establish its authenticity. Moreover, a 2017 State
15 Department report undermined Cen’s representations about China’s family
16 planning policies because it reflected a 2015 policy change allowing the children
17 of single parents or children born in violation of the one-child policy to be included
18 in household registration – without any mention of a penalty requiring
4 1 sterilization. Cen also did not provide evidence of forced sterilizations of
2 similarly situated people, i.e., people who had children abroad outside of
3 marriage. “In the absence of solid support in the record for [Cen]’s assertion that
4 he will be subjected to forced sterilization, his fear is speculative at best.” Jian
5 Xing Huang v. U.S. I.N.S., 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
6 Because Cen failed to demonstrate the well-founded fear of persecution
7 needed for asylum, he “necessarily” failed to meet the higher standards for
8 withholding of removal. 1 Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010).
9 This failure to show a well-founded fear of persecution in China is dispositive, so
10 we do not reach the agency’s firm resettlement finding. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
11 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule[,] courts and agencies are not required to
12 make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
13 reach.”)
1 Cen has not challenged the BIA’s determination as to the CAT claim, so we do not consider it here. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding petitioner forfeited his claim “by failing to discuss [it] anywhere in his brief”); see also Ud Din v. Garland, 72 F.4th 411, 419–20 & n.2 (2d Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cen v. Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cen-v-bondi-ca2-2025.