Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0038-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ZHEN FU CHENG, Shu Ling Ni, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-3218 (L), 13-3237(Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2014.
    Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Katherine E. Clark, Senior Litigation Counsel; Dawn S. Conrad, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Zhen Fu Cheng and Shu Ling Ni, natives and citizens of China, seek review of two August 2013, decisions of the BIA, affirming the February 6, 2012, decision of Immigration Judge (“I J”) Sarah M. Burr, denying their applications for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhen Fu Cheng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2013), and In re Shu Ling Ni, No. 070 701 933 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 2013), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 6, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

Petitioners sought relief under the CAT based on their claim that they fear forced sterilization because they have had more than one child in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate their eligibility for CAT relief on this basis. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-72.

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