Mei Zheng v. Sessions
687 F. App'x 59
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Mei Zheng, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief and found her asylum application frivolous; the BIA affirmed.
- The IJ found Zheng knowingly submitted fabricated statements and lied under oath and that she had received written notice of frivolousness consequences.
- Zheng argued the agency failed to follow procedural safeguards for a frivolousness finding, that she withdrew the application, and that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution as a Christian.
- Zheng retracted her original claim and testified that no one in China except family knew she became Christian in the U.S.; the IJ found her testimony about mailing religious materials not credible.
- The agency concluded Zheng failed to show she would be individually targeted or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in China, and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frivolousness finding procedural compliance | Zheng: agency failed required procedural safeguards and she did not understand written notice | Gov: written notice in application suffices; IJ made specific findings and gave opportunity to explain | Court: upheld frivolous finding; notice via application adequate; IJ considered Zheng's explanations and evidence supported findings |
| Effect of withdrawal of false statements | Zheng: withdrawal means statements should not support frivolous finding | Gov: false submissions may be considered even if later withdrawn | Held: withdrawal does not bar frivolousness finding; false filings can support it |
| Individualized well-founded fear | Zheng: would be persecuted for Christian conversion and mailing materials | Gov: no evidence Chinese authorities know of her faith; Zheng admitted limited disclosure; IJ found mailing claim not credible | Held: Zheng failed to show a reasonable possibility of individualized persecution |
| Pattern or practice showing group persecution | Zheng: Christians in China face systemic persecution | Gov: evidence shows nationwide variation; harm is not systemic or pervasive | Held: Zheng failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution; asylum, withholding, and CAT denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir.) (standards of review for immigration appeals)
- Mei Juan Zheng v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 176 (2d Cir.) (consequences of frivolous asylum applications)
- Niang v. Holder, 762 F.3d 251 (2d Cir.) (written notice may suffice; withdrawn false application can support frivolousness)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (factfinder’s discretion in drawing inferences)
- Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277 (2d Cir.) (well-founded fear is subjective fear that is objectively reasonable)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (requirements for showing individualized or group-based fear)
- Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.) (speculative fears are not objectively reasonable)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (authorities must be shown to be aware or likely to become aware of applicant’s activities)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (weight accorded to applicant’s evidence lies largely with IJ)
- Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (no pattern or practice where persecution is not nationwide)
- Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (asylum denial affects withholding and CAT relief burdens)