Ming Zheng v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 12-15135 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-15135 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ No. 12-15135 Non-Argument Calendar ___________________________ Agency No. A088-741-397 MING ZHENG, Petitioner, versus US ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _______________________________ (July 12, 2013) Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 12-15135 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Ming Zheng seeks review of the BIA s final order affirming the IJ s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Briefly stated, the petition presents these issues: 1. Whether substantial evidence supports the denial of Zheng s application for asylum based upon an adverse-credibility determination. 2. Whether substantial evidence supports the BIA s alternative finding that Zheng failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Substantial evidence review must be a highly deferential one. See Forgue v. U.S. Att y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). The BIA s adverse-credibility determination was supported by specific, cogent reasons -including Zheng s swearing to two different dates of entry into the United States -and was supported by substantial evidence. Under the law, persecution is an extreme concept and fear has an objectionably reasonable element. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005); Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1353 (11th Cir. 2009); Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001). Even if Zheng had been credible, the BIA also found that Zheng did not meet his 2 Case: 12-15135 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 3 burden of showing either past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his political opinion. This finding was supported by substantial evidence: the level of mistreatment was not sufficiently extreme and the record does not compel the conclusion that the Chinese government was aware of Zheng s low-level political activity or that it would actually target him as a result of the activity. Because Zheng failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he has necessarily failed to meet the higher standards for withholding of removal or for CAT relief. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n.4. The BIA s discussion was announced adequately. The BIA is not required to address specifically each piece of evidence. See Carrizo v. U.S. Att y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011). PETITION DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
