05212012-19-25

10-2421 (L)

Huang 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 15th 4 day of August, two thousand twelve.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 Chief Judge,

9 JON O. NEWMAN,

10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _____________________________________

13

14 XIU LAN LIN V. HOLDER 10-23 (L)

15 A077 308 988 10-2069 (Con)

16 _____________________________________ 17

18 LI XIN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-534

19 A070 908 317

20 _____________________________________ 21

22 ZHOU LIN NI v. HOLDER, 10-1018

23 A076 101 338

24 _____________________________________

25

26 JING LING LIU v. HOLDER, 10-1326

27 A077 341 431

28 _____________________________________

29 JIAN X. HUANG v. HOLDER, 10-2421 (L)

30 A070 903 598 10-4722 (Con)
05212012-19-25 2

1 _____________________________________

2 

3 XU CHAN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-3123

4 A078 016 200

5 _____________________________________

6

7 DE MEI CHEN-ZHEN v. HOLDER, 11-2000

8 A079 741 497

9 _____________________________________

10

11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review

14 are DENIED. 

15 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

16 BIA either affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge

17 (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen or denying a motion to

18 reopen or reconsider in the first instance. The applicable

19 standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao

20 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also

21 Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). 

22 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

23 motions to reopen or reconsider based on their claims that

24 they fear persecution because they have had one or more

25 children in the United States, which they contend is in

26 violation of China’s population control program. For largely

27 the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao,
05212012-19-25 3

1 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s decisions. 

2 See id. at 158-72. 

3 In Xiu Lan Lin v. Holder, Nos. 10-23 (L), 10-2069

4 (Con), and Zhou Lin Ni v. Holder, No. 10-1018, the BIA did

5 not err in declining to credit individualized and

6 unauthenticated evidence in light of underlying adverse

7 credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,

8 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). In De Mei Chen-Zhen v.

9 Holder, No. 11-2000, although the BIA erred in stating that

10 the IJ had found petitioner not credible in his underlying

11 proceedings in 2003 and declining to credit the authenticity

12 of his evidence on that basis, remand would be futile

13 because the BIA’s alternative bases for finding petitioner’s

14 evidence insufficient to warrant reopening were not in

15 error. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir.

16 2008) (finding that remand is futile when the Court can

17 confidently “predict that the agency would reach the same

18 decision absent the errors that were made” (internal

19 quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui

20 Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-72. 

21 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

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

23 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
05212012-19-25 4

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

2 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request

3 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

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

5 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

6 FOR THE COURT: 

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

8

9