Xue Xia Zhu; Jin Feng Jiang v. Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-2823
_____________
XUE XIA ZHU; JIN FENG JIANG,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
_____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA Nos. A089-254-383 and A079-393-932)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 11, 2012
Before: RENDELL, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: July 25, 2012)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Xue Xia Zhu, and her husband, Jin Feng Jiang, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals‟ (“BIA”) decision to vacate the Immigration Judge‟s

-- 1 of 7 --

2
(“IJ”) decision granting asylum to Zhu and Jiang. For the reasons that follow, we will
affirm.
I.
Zhu and Jiang, who are citizens of China, entered the United States without being
admitted or paroled in 2004 and 2001 respectively, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(A)(i). In 2007, the couple married while in the United States. In October
2007, Zhu filed an I-589 application, seeking asylum. Subsequently, the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued Notices to Appear to Zhu and Jiang on May 5, 2008.
Before the IJ, Zhu and Jiang both conceded removability, but Zhu sought asylum,
claiming to fear persecution because of her failure to comply with Chinese family
planning laws. At the time of their removal hearing, Zhu had two United States-born
children and was pregnant with her third. Zhu fears that, if she returned to China, she
would be forcibly sterilized or would have been forced to abort her pregnancy. Because
Jiang‟s claim is derivative of his wife‟s, the success of his application relies upon his wife
establishing her entitlement to protection. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A).
The IJ found that Zhu demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of her having violated China‟s family planning policies. DHS appealed the decision to
the BIA, who reversed. The BIA held that the IJ‟s factual findings underlying her
holding were not clearly erroneous, but nonetheless determined that Zhu had not met her
burden of establishing that she had a well-founded fear of persecution in China. The BIA
vacated the IJ‟s decision and ordered the Petitioners removed. Zhu timely petitioned this
Court for review, and was granted a stay of removal.

-- 2 of 7 --

3
II.
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).
Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2001). In this instance, because the BIA
issued its own opinion on the merits, we review its decision rather than that of the IJ. Li
v. Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 2005).
Where, as in this instance, an alien seeking asylum does not allege past
persecution, she must establish that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
See Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 516 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)). To make this showing, she must show a subjective fear that persecution
will result upon her return to her home country, and that fear must be “objectively
reasonable in light of the circumstances of the alien‟s case.” Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620
F.3d 372, 381 (3d Cir. 2010). The term “persecution” includes “threats to life,
confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to
life or freedom,” but “does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair,
unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.” Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.
1993). The BIA reviews the IJ‟s factual findings as to what will happen to the alien if
she returns to her home country for clear error, but whether those facts give rise to a well-
founded fear of persecution is a question of law subject to de novo review by the BIA.
See Huang, 620 F.3d at 384-85.
In turn, we apply a deferential standard of review to the BIA‟s decision. “So long
as the BIA‟s decision is supported by „reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on

-- 3 of 7 --

4
the record considered as a whole,‟ we will not disturb the BIA‟s disposition of the case.”
Chavarria, 446 F.3d at 515 (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).
III.
After a thorough review of the evidence presented in this case, we conclude that
the evidence supports the BIA‟s finding that Zhu‟s fear of future persecution is too
speculative to be considered well-founded.
Zhu first contests the BIA‟s description of enforcement of family planning policies
in Fujian Province, the province in China to which she would return, as “lax” and
“uneven” because the factual basis for those descriptors is not in the record. While Zhu
is correct that those descriptors do not seem to be in the Administrative Record, the BIA
only used those terms to describe the enforcement of financial penalties for not
complying with family planning policies, not the instances of forced sterilization or
abortion. Zhu‟s asylum claim is predicated on her fear of forced sterilization or abortion,
not a fear of excessive fines. To the extent that Zhu‟s claim is based upon a fear of
excessive fines, the record as a whole does not demonstrate that she would face economic
sanctions “so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Fatin v. INS, 12
F.3d at 1240. Moreover, Zhu‟s suggestion that she would feel pressured to abort her
pregnancy or be sterilized does not amount to a well-founded fear of persecution. See In
re T-Z, 24 I&N Dec. 163, 169 (BIA 2007) (“The statute requires that the abortion be
„forced,‟ not merely that a person choose an unpreferred course of action as the result of
some pressure that sways the choice.”). Other evidence in the record substantially
supports the BIA‟s decision. For example, the record contains evidence that there are no

-- 4 of 7 --

5
reported cases of forced abortion or sterilization in Fujian Province in the last ten years,
that the U.S. Consulate General has not seen signs of forced sterilization or abortion, and
that interviews with visa applicants from Fujian Province showed that many violators
paid fines but were not subject to forced sterilization or abortion.
Zhu next argues that the BIA failed to meaningfully consider the fact that her
mother underwent forced sterilization and that Zhu had previously been fined for failing
to report for an OB/GYN examination as a teenager. The BIA correctly noted that Zhu
failed to show how her mother‟s circumstances are similar to her own. Furthermore,
Zhu‟s fear based on the idea that her previous fine raises her chances that she would be
forcibly sterilized is too speculative, as nothing in the record supports this conclusion.
Finally, Zhu asserts that the BIA erred in construing her case as turning on the fact
that her children were born in the United States, and thus are United States citizens. Zhu
points to the 2007 State Department Country Profile, which states that “China does not
recognize dual citizenship, and children without a Chinese household registration (i.e.,
who enter and live in China as American citizens rather than as Chinese permanent
residents) are not eligible for free public education and other social benefits available to
Chinese permanent residents,” in support of the premise that she would need to register
her children, which would in turn subject her to Chinese family planning policy rules and
regulations. (A.R. 276.) However, if she does not register her children, the Country
Profile goes on to state that the benefits would still be available to her children, “but at a
higher cost than the parents of permanent resident children pay.” Importantly, the
Country Profile states that “children born abroad, if not registered as permanent residents

-- 5 of 7 --

6
of China . . ., are not considered as permanent residents of China, and therefore are not
counted against the number of children allowed under China‟s family planning law.” Id.
Thus, Zhu has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of having
United States-born children, as she failed to show that these children would be treated as
Chinese nationals. See Ying Chen v. Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2011).
In sum, we disagree with Zhu‟s assertion that BIA inappropriately “cherry picked”
a few pieces of evidence to support its conclusion; rather, the BIA reviewed the record
evidence as a whole and concluded that it did not establish an objectively well-founded
fear of prosecution. We see no reason to disturb the BIA‟s decision. See Huang, 620
F.3d at 388.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review and affirm the
decision of the BIA.

-- 6 of 7 --

1
Zhu, et. al. v. Attorney General
No. 11-2823
GARTH, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I do not agree with the majority=s decision to affirm the BIA. I would remand this
case to the BIA, as the BIA engaged in improper fact findings in its review of the IJ=s
decision. Under 8 CFR ' 1003.1(d)(3), the BIA may not reverse an IJ=s factual findings
unless they are "clearly erroneous." The BIA did not determine that the factual findings
of the IJ were "clearly erroneous," rather the BIA improperly determined that the policy
that Zhu would face in China would probably consist of Aincentives and economically-
based penalties@ (BIA opinion at 2). Contrary to the IJ, the BIA also improperly found
that Zhu=s daughters= U.S. citizenship status would be relevant to Zhu=s treatment upon
return to China. These factual determinations contradict the facts as found by the IJ. (See
Huang v. AGUS, 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010)).
Inasmuch as the IJ did not commit clear error in reaching its factual
determinations, the BIA was obligated to accept those facts and the others found by the
IJ. Because the BIA violated this standard, I would return this petition to the BIA for
proper consideration. At the very least, the IJ=s opinion, based upon the evidence in the
record, should persuade us, as I am persuaded, that Zhu=s petition should be considered by
the Circuit Mediator or reconsidered under the program of prosecutorial discretion
recently announced by the President.

-- 7 of 7 --