Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney 1

General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted as respondent

in these cases.

051710-8-11

07-5570-ag

Zhou 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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit, 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
051710-8-11 -2-

_______________________________

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 relief sought. See 8

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 standard 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 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d

138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error in the agency’s
The petitioner in Hou Yong Zhou v. Holder, 07-5570-ag, rather than 2

alleging a change in his personal circumstances, argues that he

demonstrated material changed country conditions with respect to the

Chinese government’s treatment of Christians. However, the BIA did not

err in holding that, according to the background evidence in the record,

the government’s treatment of Christians has remained constant.

051710-8-11 -3-

decisions. See id. at 168-72. Any argument that the

petitioners are eligible to 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 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).

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk