Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0817-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FEI YI HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-2054.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 29, 2014.
    Scott E. Bratton, Margaret Wong & Associates, Co., Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lisa Morinelli, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Fei Yi Huang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 2, 2013, decision of the BIA that: (1) affirmed the December 10, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Sarah Burr, pretermi-ting his application for asylum as untimely and denying him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”); and (2) denied his motions to remand. In re Fei Yi Huang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA May 2, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y. City Dec. 10, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this ease, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156-57 (2d Cir.2005).

Huang’s only challenges are to the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief, and the BIA’s denial of his motions to remand. Huang sought relief and moved to remand based on his claim that he fears forced sterilization in his home province of Zhejiang because he has had more than one child in the United States, which he contends violates China’s population control program. For largely, the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jim Hui Shoo, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Huang failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief or the BIA’s finding that his evidence submitted on appeal was immaterial. See id. at 158-72.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).