Ying Zheng v. Holder

368 F. App'x 248

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2010
• Docket: 08-3974-ag
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Ying Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 21, 2008 order of the BIA, affirming the December 22, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Ferris, which denied her application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Ying Zheng, No. A095 377 251 (B.I.A. July 21, 2008), aff'g No. A095 377 251 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 22, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the BIA’s decision alone. See Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir.2007). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Zheng failed to demonstrate her eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Her claim is premised on forced use of an intrauterine device (“IUD”), which is not a per se form of persecution. Xia Fan Huang v. Holder, 591 F.3d 124, 129-30 (2d Cir.2010). Moreover, the record does not compel the conclusion that Zheng demonstrated surrounding circumstances rising to the level of persecution. See id. at 128-30; see also Matter of M-F-W & L-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 633, 639-42 (B.I.A.2008) (citing Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006) and Chen v. U.S. INS, 359 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir.2004)). Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Zheng failed to demonstrate that she suffered past persecution, she was not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear or likelihood of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1), 1208.16(b)(1). Zheng has not alleged a prospective fear of persecution independent of her purported involuntary IUD insertion. Accordingly, the BIA reasonably denied Zheng’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and we need not consider her alternative argu ments that her purportedly involuntary IUD insertion occurred on account of a protected ground, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).