Case ID: f-appx_397/html/0726-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIAO HONG ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-0633-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 27, 2010.
    Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director; Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Xiao Hong Zhou, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 11, 2008, BIA order denying her motion to reopen. In re Xiao Hong Zhou, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2008). Zhou’s motion to reopen was based on her claim that she fears persecution on account of the birth of her U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family planning policy. The government argues that we lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s denial of Zhou’s motion to reopen because the agency pretermitted as untimely her original asylum application based on the birth of her U.S. citizen children. We assume hypothetical jurisdiction in this case because “the jurisdictional issues are complex and the substance of the claim is ... plainly without merit.” Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 338 n. 2 (2d Cir.2006).

For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying Zhou’s motion to reopen. See id. at 168-72. Although Zhou is from Zhejiang Province and the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao are from Fujian Province, before the agency, as in her counseled brief to this Court, Zhou relied on the evidence considered in Jian Hui Shao and country conditions evidence related to provinces other than Zhe-jiang. Additionally, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the record evidence related to Zhejiang Province either does not discuss forced sterilization or references isolated incidents in which individuals not similarly situated to Zhou were persecuted. See id. at 160-61.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).