The District Court affirmed the decision of the Magistrate Judge, who had granted confirmation of two CIETAC awards. The Judge had rejected Zhang’s argument that confirmation should be denied under Art. V(1)(d) of the New York Convention because CIETAC failed to appoint all three arbitrators as required under Art. 27(3) of the 2012 CIETAC Rules. In doing so, the Judge had deferred to the decisions of the arbitral tribunal and, on appeal, a Beijing court, which had both rejected this argument. The Court held that Zhang did not satisfy her burden of proving her claim that the composition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, as she offered no evidence to rebut the Beijing court’s findings that the CIETAC rule that required CIETAC to appoint all three members of the arbitral tribunal does not apply when one party does not exercise its right to nominate one of the three arbitrators – as Zhang had done here.