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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 15 th** **day of August, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 Chief Judge, 8 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 9 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 10 Circuit Judges**.** 11

_____________________________________ 12 13 XIU LAN LIN V. HOLDER 10-23 (L) 14 A077 308 988 10-2069 (Con) 15

_____________________________________ 16 17 LI XIN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-534 18 A070 908 317 19

_____________________________________ 20 21 ZHOU LIN NI v. HOLDER, 10-1018 22 A076 101 338 23

_____________________________________ 24 25 JING LING LIU v. HOLDER, 10-1326 26 A077 341 431 27

_____________________________________ 28 **JIAN X. HUANG v. HOLDER, 10-2421 (L)** 29 **A070 903 598 10-4722 (Con)** 302 05212012-19-25 _____________________________________ 1 2 **XU CHAN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-3123** 3 **A078 016 200** 4

_____________________________________ 5 6 **DE MEI CHEN-ZHEN** v. HOLDER, 11-2000 7 A079 741 497 8

_____________________________________ 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 13
are DENIED. 14 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 15 BIA either affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge 16 (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen or denying a motion to 17 reopen or reconsider in the first instance. The applicable 18 standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao 19 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also 20 Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). 21 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed 22 motions to reopen or reconsider based on their claims that 23 they fear persecution because they have had one or more 24 children in the United States, which they contend is in 25 violation of China’s population control program. For largely 26 the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao , 273 05212012-19-25 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s decisions. 1 See id. at 158-72. 2
In Xiu Lan Lin v. Holder, Nos. 10-23 (L), 10-2069 3 (Con), and Zhou Lin Ni v. Holder, No. 10-1018, the BIA did 4 not err in declining to credit individualized and 5 unauthenticated evidence in light of underlying adverse 6 credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales , 7 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). In De Mei Chen-Zhen v. 8 Holder, No. 11-2000, although the BIA erred in stating that 9 the IJ had found petitioner not credible in his underlying 10 proceedings in 2003 and declining to credit the authenticity 11 of his evidence on that basis, remand would be futile 12 because the BIA’s alternative bases for finding petitioner’s 13 evidence insufficient to warrant reopening were not in 14

error. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 15 2008) (finding that remand is futile when the Court can 16 confidently “predict that the agency would reach the same 17 decision absent the errors that were made” (internal 18 quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui 19 Shao , 546 F.3d at 158-72. 20 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review 21 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 22 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions 234 05212012-19-25 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 2 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance 3 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and 4 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 5
FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8 9