Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MEI YUN DONG v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Huang Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Yan Rong Liu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 10-3007, 10-4837, 10-5046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 15, 2012.
    Theodore N. Cox, Esq., Law Office of Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Karen L. Melnik, Trial, OIL OIL, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA that: (1) affirmed the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and related relief; and (2) denied in the first instance a motion to remand. The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought relief from removal based on their claims that they fear persecution because they have had one or more children in the United States, which they contend is in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s decisions. See id. at 158-72.

In Mei Yun Dong v. Holder, No. 10-3007, and Huang Lin v. Holder, No. 10-4837, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission of petitioners’ applications for asylum as untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). In Yan Rong Liu v. Holder, No. 10-5046, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s unexhausted argument that she is eligible for CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir.2006) (citing Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir.2003)).

For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 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).