affirmed the IJ’s decision without an opinion, we must scrutinize the IJ’s decision.
v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). The IJ’s findings of fact are
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C.
1252(b)(4)(B). This standard requires that the agency support its
findings with substantial evidence. Dia, 353 F.3d at 247-48. Substantial evidence is
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion . . . .” N.L.R.B. v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300
(1939) (quoted in Dia, 353 F.3d at 248).
Zheng alleges that she was persecuted on account of her political opinion because
she was forced to abort two pregnancies while she was living in China. See 8 U.S.C.
1101(42) (providing that “a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy . . . shall be
deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion”). Zheng testified that
she was married at the age of 21 in a traditional ceremony to Shu Zhang, that she
discovered that she was pregnant in March 1999 and April 2000, and that she endured, at
the hands of local government officials, forcible abortions on April 1, 1999 and April 15,
2000 at the Hoyu Hospital. Zheng affirmed that she and her husband were saddened by
the loss of their children. As further support for her claim, Zheng offered into evidence
two certificates indicating that she had abortions on April 1, 1999 and April 15, 2000 at
The IJ had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R.
1208.2(b). The BIA exercised appellate
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
1003.1(b). We have jurisdiction over Zheng’s petition
for review under 8 U.S.C.