Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0052-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIUHUI WANG v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Mei Juan Jiang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 07-4948-ag, 08-0180-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 29, 2010.
    Robert J. Adinolfi, Esq., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Thankful T. Vanderstar, Esq., US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    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 for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Both of these petitions challenge a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s decision pretermitting petitioners’ applications for asylum and denying their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Title 8, Section 1158(a)(3) of the United States Code provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that an asylum application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), or its finding of neither changed nor extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimeliness under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Notwithstanding that provision, however, this Court retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and “questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Because petitioners have raised neither a constitutional claim nor a question of law, we lack jurisdiction to review their challenges to the agency’s pretermission of their applications for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).

Petitioners’ applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief were based primarily on the birth of one or more children in the United States. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, we find no error in the challenged BIA decisions. 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d Cir.2008).

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).