Case ID: f-appx_448/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHITENG DONG v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jinsai Gao v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Min Xiu Han v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ming Zhong Zhang, a.k.a. Mingzhong Zhang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Qiu Mei Wang, Ding Tian Shi v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yushen Jiane, a.k.a. Yu Zhen Jiang, a.k.a. Keiko Aki Sada v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Feng Mei Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Neng Quan Wang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yun Li v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Lin Ying Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiu Jing Wang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Min Xing Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Shu Gui Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xin Yao Liu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ye Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Hui Yong Zhou v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Hua Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Zhifang Zcang-Chen, A.K.A. Zhi-Fang Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yi Luan Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xin Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yuan Xiu Li v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Guo Yan Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Zhong Yan Zheng v. Holder, et al., [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Er Sheng Lan v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Tianxing Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jinbei Zhao, a.k.a. Kazumi Milyata v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Heng-Lun Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Li Min Wei Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 08-3018-ag, 09-4028-ag, 09-4074-ag, 09-4795-ag, 09-5116-ag (L); 09-5152-ag(Con), 09-5264-ag, 10-29-ag, 10-57-ag, 10-168-ag, 10-295-ag, 10-475-ag, 10-965-ag, 10-968-ag, 10-1032-ag, 10-1322-ag, 10-1407-ag, 10-1413-ag, 10-1454-ag, 10-1501-ag, 10-1911-ag, 10-2033-ag, 10-2306-ag, 10-2362-ag, 10-2431-ag, 10-2462-ag, 10-2526-ag, 10-2633-ag, 10-2704-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 23, 2011.
    
      Brendan Paul Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Peter D. Lobel, Esq., Law Office of Peter D. Lobel Esq., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted where necessary.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA either affirming the decision of an immigration judge denying a motion to reopen or denying a motion to reopen in the first instance. The applicable standards of review by this Court 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 their claim that they fear persecution because they have one or more children in violation of China’s coercive population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-73, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioners here, one of the petitioners is from Zhe-jiang Province. As with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao related to Fujian Province, her evidence related to Zhejiang Province was deficient in some instances because it does not discuss forced sterilizations and in the remainder because it references isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated to the petitioner. See id. at 160-61, 170-71. The BIA did not err in declining to credit some of the petitioners’ unauthenticated evidence in light of an underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 148, 146-47 (2d Cir.2007).

Two of the petitioners argue that the agency applied an incorrect burden of proof by requiring them to establish a certainty of persecution. To the contrary, in those cases, the agency either reasonably relied on their failure to demonstrate changed country conditions or explicitly applied the appropriate prima facie standard. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.

Four of the petitioners argue that the BIA erred in discounting notices they submitted, purportedly issued by family planning officials, solely because they were unauthenticated. While the agency may err in rejecting a document solely based on the alien’s failure to properly authenticate the document pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir.2005), the notices were not material to petitioners’ claims because they merely referenced the family planning policy’s mandatory sterilization requirement without indicating that such sterilizations are performed by force, see Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 165, 172.

In Feng Mei Lin v. Holder, No. 10-29-ag, we decline to either consider the extra-record evidence petitioner submitted or remand for the agency to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); see also Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir.2007). Because the agency did not err in finding that the petitioners in JinSai Gao v. Holder, No. 09-4028-ag, Neng Quan Wang v. Holder, No. 10-57-ag, and Yi Luan Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1501-ag, failed to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief, and because that finding was dispositive of their motions to reopen, we need not consider the additional arguments raised in their briefs. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.

We are without jurisdiction to consider two of the petitions to the extent they challenge the agency’s underlying denial of the petitioners’ applications for asylum and related relief because petitioners did not timely petition for review of those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001).

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). 
      
      . The petitioner in Xiu Jing Wang v. Holder, No. 10-475-ag.
     
      
      . The petitioners in Ming Zhong Zhang v. Holder, No. 09-4795-ag; Feng Mei Lin v. Holder, No. 10-29-ag; Xiu Jing Wang v. Holder, No. 10-475-ag; Min Xing Lin v. Holder, No. 10-965-ag; Xin Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1911-ag; Yuan Xiu Li v. Holder, No. 10-2033-ag; and Tianxing Zheng v. Holder, No. 10-2462-ag.
     
      
      . The petitioners in Hua Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1413-ag; and Li Min Wei v. Holder, No. 10-2704-ag.
     
      
      . The petitioners in Shu Gui Chen v. Holder, No. 10-968-ag; Ye Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1322-ag; Hui Yong Zhou v. Holder, No. 10-1407-ag, and Heng-Lun Chen v. Holder, No. 10-2633-ag.
     
      
      . The petitioners in Shiteng Dong v. Holder, No. 08-3018-ag; and Guo Yan Chen v. Holder, No. 10-2306-ag.