Case ID: f-appx_581/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CUI PING LIN, aka Julia Chan v. HOLDER. Bao Tsai Tsuo, aka Yong Cheng, aka Bo Cai Cao, aka Bao Chai Cao v. Holder. Xue Fang Liu v. Holder.
    Nos. 12-13, 12-2906, 13-2383.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 28, 2014.
    Theodore N. Cox, Esq., Law Office of Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Cui Ping Lin.
    Bernard Joseph, Oil, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Holder.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL and Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA that denied a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution because they have had one or more children 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 determinations that the petitioners failed to demonstrate either materially changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely and number-barred filing of their motions or their prima facie eligibility for relief as to their family planning claims. See id. at 158-72.

We also find no error in the agency’s conclusions that petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief based on their religious practices. See id. at 169-74.

For the foregoing reasons, these 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).