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 GOVER** **NED 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.** 

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

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

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

### on the 28**th**

### day of October, two thousand fourteen. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### JON O. NEWMAN, 7 

### DENNIS JACOBS, 8 

### PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 

### Circuit Judges**.** 10



### ____________________________________ 11 12 

### CUI PING LIN, AKA JULIA CHAN 12-13 13 

### v. HOLDER 14 

### A079 408 096 15



### ____________________________________ 16 17 

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

### AKA BO CAI CAO, AKA BAO CHAI CAO 19 

### v. HOLDER, 20 

### A072 971 385 21



### ____________________________________ 22 23 

### XUE FANG LIU v. HOLDER, 13-2383 24 

### A077 322 243 25



### ____________________________________ 26 27 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 28 

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

07162014-B3-3-5

### ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 1


### are DENIED. 2 

### Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 3 

### BIA that denied a motion to reopen. The applicable 4 

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

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

### Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed 7 

### motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution 8 

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

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

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

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

### the petitioners failed to demonstrate either materially 13 

### changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely 14 

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

### facie eligibility for relief as to their family planning 16 

### claims. See id. at 158-72. 17 

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

### petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie 19 

### eligibility for relief based on their religious practices. 20 

### See id.at 169-74. 21
22



### 2 07162014-B3-3-5

### For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review 1 

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

### removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions 3 

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

### these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 5 

### for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance 6 

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

### Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 8


### FOR THE COURT: 9 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12 13



### 3 07162014-B3-3-5