10-4180-ag Chen 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 2**nd**

### 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 

### MEI LING LI v. HOLDER, 10-55-ag 14 

### A077 353 526 15



### ____________________________________ 16 17 

### XIN CHEN v. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, 18 

### HOLDER, 10-2613-ag 19 

### A073 536 028 20



### ____________________________________ 21 22 

### TIAN YAO DONG v. HOLDER, 10-4129-ag 23 

### A095 381 956 24



### ____________________________________ 25 26 

### JIAN ZHEN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4180-ag 27 

### A072 785 517 28



### ____________________________________ 29

02272012-21-301 

### DAN DAN WU v. HOLDER, 11-321-ag 2 

### A079 774 668 3



### ____________________________________ 4 5 

### MENG ZHAO WANG v. HOLDER, 11-557-ag 6 

### A073 179 839 7



### ____________________________________ 8 9 

### XIAN XIANG LIN v. HOLDER, 11-1363-ag 10 

### A073 599 598 11



### ____________________________________ 12 13 

### LI YIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1791-ag 14 

### A078 725 231 15



### ____________________________________ 16 17 

### LI YING CHEN v. HOLDER, 18 

### U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE 11-2080-ag 19 

### A078 412 192 20



### ____________________________________ 21 22 

### ZHEN YIN GUO v. HOLDER, 11-2280-ag 23 

### A070 908 560 24



### ____________________________________ 25 26 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 27 

### Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 28 

### ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 29


### are DENIED. 30 

### Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 31 

### BIA either denying a motion to reopen or affirming an 32 

### Immigration Judge’s denial of a motion to reopen. The 33 

### applicable standards of review are well-established. See 34 

### Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d 35 

### Cir. 2008). 36 

### 2 02272012-21-30

### Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed 1 

### motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution 2 

### because they have had one or more children in violation of 3 

### China’s population control program. For largely the same 4 

### reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d 5 

### 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. See id. at 6 

### 158-72. 7


### In Tian Yao Dong v. Holder, No. 10-4129-ag and in Zhen 8 

### Yin Guo v. Holder, No. 11-2280-ag, the BIA did not abuse its 9 

### discretion in declining to credit the petitioners’ 10 

### unauthenticated evidence regarding the family planning 11 

### policy in light of the agency’s underlying adverse 12 

### credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales , 13 

### 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). 14 

### Petitioners’ motions to reopen were also based on their 15 

### claims that they fear persecution in China on account of 16 

### their religious practices. The BIA did not err in finding 17 

### that petitioners failed to demonstrate either material 18 

### changed country conditions or their prima facie eligibility 19 

### for relief on this basis. See8 U.S.C. 20 

### § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 21 

### 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 22 

### 104-05 (1988). 23 

### 3 02272012-21-30

### 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



### 4 02272012-21-30