12-13; 12-2906; 13-2383

Lin; Tsuo; Liu v. Holder

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 A SUMMARY ORDER

MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 28th 4 day of October, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 DENNIS JACOBS,

9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 ____________________________________

12

13 CUI PING LIN, AKA JULIA CHAN 12-13

14 v. HOLDER

15 A079 408 096

16 ____________________________________ 17

18 BAO TSAI TSUO, AKA YONG CHENG, 12-2906

19 AKA BO CAI CAO, AKA BAO CHAI CAO

20 v. HOLDER,

21 A072 971 385

22 ____________________________________

23

24 XUE FANG LIU v. HOLDER, 13-2383

25 A077 322 243

26 ____________________________________

27

28 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

07162014-B3-3-5
1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review

2 are DENIED. 

3 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

4 BIA that denied a motion to reopen. The applicable

5 standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao

6 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

7 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

8 motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution

9 because they have had one or more children in violation of

10 China’s population control program. For largely the same

11 reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d

12 138, we find no error in the agency’s determinations that

13 the petitioners failed to demonstrate either materially

14 changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely

15 and number-barred filing of their motions or their prima

16 facie eligibility for relief as to their family planning

17 claims. See id. at 158-72. 

18 We also find no error in the agency’s conclusions that

19 petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie

20 eligibility for relief based on their religious practices. 

21 See id. at 169-74.

22

07162014-B3-3-5 2
1 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

2 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

3 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

5 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request

6 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

7 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and

8 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

11

12

13

07162014-B3-3-5 3