10-2680 (L); 10-4150 (L) Lin v. Holder; Weng 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 Thurgood Marshall United 2 

### States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 3 

### on the 27**th**

### day of March, two thousand fourteen. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### JON O. NEWMAN, 7 

### DENNIS JACOBS, 8 

### PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 

### Circuit Judges**.** 10



### _______________________________________ 11 12 

### CUIRONG LIN, CHENXI CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2680 (L), 13 

### A090 347 371 11-1250 (Con) 14 

### A090 347 372 15



### _______________________________________ 16 17 

### SHU PING WENG, XIN HUANG v. HOLDER, 10-4150 (L), 18 

### A089 009 143 11-4391 (Con) 19 

### A089 009 144 20



### _______________________________________ 21 22 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 23 

### Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 24 

### ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 25


### are DENIED. 26

09232013-11-12

### These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that: 1 

### (1) affirmed decisions of immigration judges (“IJ”) denying 2 

### asylum and related relief; and (2) denied motions to reopen 3 

### in the first instance. The applicable standards of review 4 

### are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,546 5 

### F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 6 

### Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought 7 

### relief from removal based on claims that they fear 8 

### persecution because they have had more than one child in 9 

### violation of China’s population control program. For 10 

### largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui 11 

### Shao , 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s 12 

### determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate their 13 

### eligibility for relief. See id.at 158-72. 14 

### In addition, the BIA did not err in finding that 15 

### petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie 16 

### eligibility for relief based on the practice of either Falun 17 

### Gong or a new religion because the evidence they submitted 18 

### did not demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, 19 

### or likely to become aware of, their practices. See 20 

### Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); 21 

### see also Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 168. 22



### 2 09232013-11-12

### 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



### 3 09232013-11-12