Pur sua nt to Fed era l Rule of Ap pel lat e Pro ced ure 43(c )(2 ), Att orn ey 1 Gen era l E ric H. Ho lde r, Jr. , is aut oma tic all y s ubs tit ute d a s r esp ond ent in the se cas es. 051710-8-11 07-5 570-ag Zhou v. Holder 

## UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUM MARY 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 PART Y CI TING 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 Circui t, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 31 day of August, two thousand ten. st


### PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

Chief Judge , JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges .

_______________________________ HOU YONG ZHOU v. HOLDER, 07-5570-ag 1 

### A077 766 626

_______________________________ ZHONG QUAN YANG v. HOLDER, 07-5753-ag A073 575 827

_______________________________ XIU LAN HUANG v. HOLDER, 08-0982-ag A076 790 115

_______________________________ REN CHI HER v. HOLDER, 08-3635-ag A072 182 628

### -2- 0 5 1 7 1 0

- 8

- 1 1 

### _______________________________ UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that these petitions for review are DENIED. Each of these petitions challenges an order of the BIA denying a motion to reopen, or affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of a motion to reopen, based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient to avoid the time and numerical limits applicable to such motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the underlying rel ie f s ought. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b). Under the circumstances of these cases, we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standar d of review is wellestablished. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). The motions to reopen at issue in these petitions were each based primarily on the birth of one or more children to the Chinese citizen petitioners. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Sha o v . Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we fi nd no error in the agency’sThe pe tit ion er in HouYo ng Zho u v . Hold er , 07- 557 0-a g, rat her th an 2 all egi ng a c han ge in his pe rso nal ci rcu mst anc es, argues that he dem ons tra tedma ter ial ch ang ed cou ntr y c ond iti ons wi th res pec t t o t he Chi nes e g ove rnm ent ’s tre atm ent of Ch ris tia ns. How eve r, th e B IA didno t err in ho ldi ng th at, ac cor din g t o t he bac kgr oun d e vid enc e i n t he rec ord , the go ver nme nt’ s t rea tme nt of Chr ist ian s h as rem ain ed con sta nt.

051710-8-11 

### -3- decisions. See id. at 168-72. Any argument that the petitioners are eligible t o file a successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances is foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 

### 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 thes e 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), an d Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk