10-3365 

Lin v. Sessions 

BIA 

Sichel, IJ 

A099 427 631 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED 

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE 

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT 

FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE 

(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY 

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. 

PRESENT: 

JON O. NEWMAN,

DENNIS JACOBS, 

PIERRE N. LEVAL,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

XIA LIN, 

Petitioner, 

 

v. 10-3365 

 NAC 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New 

 York. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General; Shelley R. Goad, 

Assistant Director; Kristen 

Giuffreda Chapman, Trial Attorney, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, 
2

10242016-11 

United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of two 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

 Petitioner Xia Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks 

review of (1) a February 19, 2009, decision of the BIA that 

reversed the January 23, 2007, decision of an Immigration Judge 

(“IJ”) granting asylum, In re Xia Lin, No. A099 427 631 (B.I.A. 

Feb. 19, 2009), rev’g No. A099 427 631 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 

Jan. 23, 2007), and (2) a July 26, 2010, decision of the BIA 

that denied her motion to remand, In re Xia Lin, No. A099 427 

631 (B.I.A. July 26, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

 As an initial matter, contrary to the Government’s 

contention, we have jurisdiction to review both of the BIA’s 

decisions. In Alibasic v. Mukasey, we held that the Court has 

jurisdiction to review, as a final order of removal, a BIA 

decision denying relief from removal and remanding solely for 

consideration of voluntary departure. 547 F.3d 78, 83-84 (2d 
3

10242016-11 

Cir. 2008). We did not hold that an alien is required to 

petition for review of such decisions at the time they are issued 

rather than wait to petition until the completion of removal 

proceedings on remand. See id.; see also INS v. St. Cyr, 533 

U.S. 289, 313 (2001) (referring to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) as a 

“zipper clause” that provides for consolidation in one action 

in the court of appeals of questions of law and fact arising 

in removal proceedings). 

The standards of review for both decisions 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). Lin applied for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

Torture, and later moved to reopen removal proceedings, 

asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her 

children in the United States purportedly 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 at 156-73, we find no error in the BIA’s 

determination on de novo review that Lin failed to satisfy her 
4

10242016-11 

burden of establishing an objectively reasonable well founded 

fear of persecution. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk