Case ID: f-appx_558/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YA QING YANG v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiu Yan Lin, aka Xiuyan Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jie Lin Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Tian Jin Zou v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jian Ling Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Shan You Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Kong An Ni, aka Kong-En Ni v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Lin Fei Xie v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yan Qin Chen, aka Shi Ni Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiao Yan Wu, aka Xiaoyan Wu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 11-1944, 11-1993, 11-2285, 12-177, 12-1826, 12-2136, 12-2892, 12-4675, 13-357, 13-1793.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 12, 2014.
    John Chang, Esq., The Law Offices of John Chang, New York, NY, for Ya Qing Yang.
    Don George Scroggin, OIL, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Holder.
    
      PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA that: (1) affirmed a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen; (2) denied a motion to reopen in the first instance; or (3) denied a motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008); see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d Cir.2001); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution because they have had one or more U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s determinations that the petitioners failed to demonstrate either materially changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely or number-barred filing of their motions or their prima facie eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, in Jie Lin Chen v. Holder, 11-2285 (3) and Lin Fei Xie v. Holder, 12-4675 (8), petitioners are from Zhejiang Province. However, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence relating to Zhejiang Province is insufficient because it does not discuss the use of force in the enforcement of the family planning policy. See id. at 160-61, 171-72.

In Xiu Yan Lin v. Holder, 11-1993 (2), Tian Jin Zou v. Holder, 12-177 (4), Jian Ling Chen v. Holder, 12-1826 (5), Lin Fei Xie v. Holder, 12-4675 (8), and Xiao Yan Wu v. Holder, 13-1793 (10), we find no error in the agency’s conclusions that petitioners failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions with regard to China’s treatment of unregistered religious groups or Falun Gong practitioners. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72; see also Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2008). In Yan Qin Chen v. Holder, 13-357 (9), the BIA did not err in declining to credit the petitioner’s unauthenticated or unsworn individualized evidence in light of the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir.2007).

Finally, in Jie Lin Chen v. Holder, 11-2285 (3), we find no error in the agency’s conclusion that petitioner’s motion to rescind the IJ’s in absentia deportation order was untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), and that she failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing rescission based on her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, see Rashid v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir.2008); see also Jian Hua Wang v. BIA, 508 F.3d 710, 715 (2d Cir.2007).

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).