Huifang Zheng v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUIFANG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74174
Agency No. A200-987-130
ORDER AMENDING
Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition, filed on March 16, 2017, is amended as
follows: On page 2, line 10, replace “prosecution” with “persecution.” With the
foregoing amendment, Zheng’s petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further
petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case.
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUIFANG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74174
Agency No. A200-987-130
AMENDED MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Huifang Zheng, a native of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review factual
* 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).
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 2 of 3 --

2
findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo. Ridore v. Holder,
696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Zheng failed to
establish past persecution. Although the IJ found that Zheng’s family suffered
economic harm as a result of the number of children Zheng’s parents produced,
substantial evidence supports the finding that such harm did not reduce the family
to an impoverished existence. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2004). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
Zheng failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko
v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003).
As Zheng failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she has also failed to
show she is eligible for withholding of removal, which imposes a heavier burden
of proof. Zehatye v. Gonzalez, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of Zheng’s CAT
claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be
forced to undergo a sterilization procedure at the instigation of the Chinese
government, or that she would be subject to other forms of torture. Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --