482 F. App'x 628
2d Cir.2012Background
- Zhong, a PRC citizen, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an IJ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- The IJ deemed Zhong’s asylum claim untimely and therefore considered only withholding and CAT; the BIA assumed, for purposes of its decision, that Zhong had shown changed circumstances and addressed all three claims.
- The court reviews the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard.
- Zhong’s future fear of persecution rests on his alleged CDP USA Headquarters membership and anti-government activity abroad.
- The agency found Zhong failed to show that the persecution would be objectively reasonable or that the Chinese government would discover his CDP activities.
- The court ultimately denies the petition for review and dismisses Zhong’s stay motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asylum timeliness and scope | Zhong argues timeliness is satisfied and merits evaluation for asylum. | Holder contends asylum timeliness bars relief and only withholding/CAT considered. | Asylum timeliness not satisfied; review proceeds on other claims |
| Future persecution standard for asylum | Zhong asserts a well-founded fear based on CDP USA activity abroad. | Holder argues fear not objectively reasonable given lack of evidence of targeted persecution on return. | Agency correctly found fear not objectively well-founded |
| Government awareness/discovery of CDP activity | Zhong contends Chinese authorities would learn of his CDP activity via online publications. | Holder notes speculative link; need showing government awareness on return. | Finding supported; lack of solid record support |
| Weight given to evidence, including unsworn statements | Zhong challenges weight given to wife’s unsworn statements. | Holder properly weighed documentary and testimonial evidence within agency discretion. | Weight properly assigned; no error |
| Withholding of removal and CAT relief | Zhong seeks withholding and CAT relief based on same factual predicates as asylum. | Holder applies higher burden; petition denied on both grounds. | Both withholding and CAT denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (subjective fear and objective reasonableness requirement for asylum)
- Shi Jie Ge v. Holder, 588 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing BIA factual findings)
- Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence review of agency findings)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (need for showing government awareness of disfavored status)
- Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (fear must have solid support in the record)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of evidence rests largely with agency)