Zeng v. Bondi

── Zeng v. Bondi ── Case No.: 16-3208 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 31, 2026 Category: General 16-3208 Zeng v. Bondi BIA Van Wyke, IJ A087 652 199 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 31st day of March, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JIA YOU ZENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3208 17 NAC 18 PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 1 FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, Esq., New York, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; 4 Edward E. Wiggers, Senior Litigation 5 Counsel; A. Ashley Arthur, Trial Attorney, 6 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Jia You Zeng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 13 China, seeks review of an August 18, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an April 14 30, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Jia You Zeng, No. A 087 652 199 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2016), aff’g No. A 17 087 652 199 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 30, 2015). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions, including those 20 portions of the IJ’s decision that the BIA did not explicitly discuss. 1 See Yun-Zui 1 Contrary to Zeng’s assertion, the BIA did not decline to rely on the grounds it did not discuss. 2 1 Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). “We review de novo questions 2 of law and the application of law to fact,” and “[w]e review the agency’s factual 3 findings, including adverse credibility findings, under the substantial evidence 4 standard.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he 5 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 6 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.