Zheng v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 23-667
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHEN ZHENG, No. 23-667 Agency No. Petitioner, A077-977-217 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Zhen Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the

decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) granting the government’s motion to

terminate his asylum status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Reviewing de novo questions of law, Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006,

1009 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the petition.

More than two decades ago, Zheng was found to have filed a frivolous

application for asylum. His appeals from that finding were unsuccessful. Once

final, the frivolousness determination permanently barred Zheng from receiving

any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). In

2014, he was erroneously granted derivative asylum based on his wife’s asylee

status. The government subsequently moved to terminate Zheng’s status. In 2018,

an IJ granted DHS’s motion. The BIA affirmed.

On appeal, Zheng does not dispute the BIA’s conclusions that the

frivolousness determination was final and that he was statutorily ineligible for

derivative asylum. A final frivolousness determination is subject to collateral

attack only for ineffective assistance of counsel. Matter of H-Y-Z-, 28 I. & N. Dec.

156, 159 (BIA 2020). Zheng forfeited such a claim by failing to make it pursuant

to the proper procedures. Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988).

Even if we were to reach the merits, he has failed to show inadequate performance

and prejudice, as required. Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088

(9th Cir. 2015). The BIA’s unchallenged conclusions are thus dispositive.

PETITION DENIED.

2 23-667