Zheng v. Attorney General of United States, 070213 FED3, 12-4586
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||JIN YU ZHENG; CHUN JIN LIU, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent|
|Judge Panel:||Before: FUENTES, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 02, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 5, 2013.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A073-183-647 and A074-153-675) Honorable Rosalind K. Malloy, Immigration Judge.
Chun Jin Liu and Jin Yu Zheng, natives and citizens of China, seek review of the final orders of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on November 27, 2012. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
This case has a long procedural history, and we set forth only the facts pertinent to this petition for review. Zheng and Liu (collectively, "Petitioners") are husband and wife. They entered the United States in 1996 without inspection and were placed in deportation proceedings. They admitted that they were deportable as charged but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). (A.R. 776.) As grounds for relief, they argued that Liu was subjected to a forced abortion and that they feared future persecution due to China's family planning policies.1 Petitioners submitted, among other things, an abortion certificate and a fine notice in support of their applications. In response, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") submitted a United States Consulate investigative report, which found that the abortion certificate was fabricated and that it could not verify the authenticity of the fine notice due to its age. The Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied their applications after making an adverse credibility determination due to Zheng's inconsistent testimony and the conclusions set forth in the consular report.2 The BIA dismissed Petitioners' appeal and they petitioned for review. On the Government's unopposed motion, we remanded the proceedings to the BIA (A.R. 415), who remanded the case to the IJ, for the sole purpose of giving Petitioners a "reasonable opportunity to respond" to the consular report's findings (A.R. 396). The IJ again denied Petitioners' applications and granted them voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed, and they filed the instant...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP