Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0010-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUAN CHEN, AKA Mu Yang Pan, Cheng Jiang, AKA Chang Jang v. SESSIONS, Zhong Duan Chen v. Sessions,
    10-3819(L)
    11-2004(Con)
    12-3086
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    October 3, 2017
    
      Richard Tarzia, Law Office of Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ, for Petitioner
    Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

These petitions challenge BIA decisions that reversed grants of asylum by Immigration Judges (“U”), and declined to reopen or remand to raise new bases for asylum. 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); see also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, applied for asylum and sought reopening based on claims that they fear persecution because they have violated China’s population control program with the birth of their children in the United States. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 156-73, we find no error in the BIA’s determination on de novo review that Petitioners failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of persecution based on the birth of their children in the United States.

Insofar as Petitioners’ motions to reopen and remand were based on their practice of religion or Falun Gong in the United States, the BIA did not err in finding that they failed to demonstrate their prima fa-cie eligibility for relief. The Petitioners did not submit evidence that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware of, their practices. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.

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