Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), 1 Attorney G en eral Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted when necessary.

08232010-1-23 07 -3 507-ag Qu v.Holder 

### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS

FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY 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 AS UMMARY 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 Se co ndCi rc ui t, he ldatth e D an ie l P at ri ckMo yn ihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 8 day of October, two thousand ten. th PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

Chief Judge . JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges .

_________________________________ SHUANG SHI QU v. HOLDER, 07-3507-ag 1 A028 776 789

_________________________________ ZHEN LANG WENG v. HOLDER, 07-3941-ag A072 766 089

_________________________________ QI DUAN SUN v. HOLDER, 07-4169-ag A070 897 908-2- 08232010-1-23 YAN PING CHEN, YOU CHEN YANG v. 07-4604-ag (L) HOLDER, 07-4605-ag (Con) A077 280 957 A073 169 009

_________________________________ SHUIFANG ZHENG v. HOLDER, 07-4699-ag A077 550 257

_________________________________ HUI LI, MEI XIAN LI v. HOLDER, 07-4747-ag (L) A072 836 724 07-4748-ag (Con) A077 341 415

_________________________________ SU ZHEN WENG v. HOLDER, 07-4914-ag A078 972 970

_________________________________ CHUAN JIAN ZHANG v. HOLDER, 07-4957-ag A073 185 946

_________________________________ QIAO YING CHEN, 07-5674-ag (L) CHI-HSUN CHEN v. HOLDER, 07-5676-ag (Con) A077 323 004 A076 810 625

_________________________________ ZHOU JIN NI v. HOLDER, 07-5755-ag A073 051 737

_________________________________ GONG AN CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-0346-ag A075 842 254

_________________________________ AL WHA LIN v. HOLDER, 08-0663-ag A075 895 504

_________________________________ SHUN XING LIN v. HOLDER, 08-1233-ag A072 460 406

_________________________________-3- 08232010-1-23 RONG YAO YANG v. UNITED STATES 08-1345-ag DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, A078 293 002

_________________________________ TAI HUAN LI v. HOLDER, 08-2264-ag A073 134 641

_________________________________ CUI PING LIN v. HOLDER, 08-2539-ag A079 408 096

_________________________________ MEI YING KE, TIAN HUA LIN 08-2997-ag (L) v. HOLDER, 08-3002-ag (Con) A095 433 710 A073 166 452

_________________________________ SHIN LOK CHENG v. HOLDER, 08-4125-ag A073 148 210

_________________________________ YING LIN v. HOLDER, 08-5166-ag A073 645 603

_________________________________ YAN TANG v. HOLDER, 08-5169-ag A075 962 124

_________________________________ LIQUN CHEN v. HOLDER, 09-0608-ag A077 957 589

_________________________________ BING ZHENG v. HOLDER, 09-0817-ag A072 416 443

_________________________________

_________________________________ XIU QIN CAO v. HOLDER, 09-1207-ag A075 980 794

_________________________________-4- 08232010-1-23 UPON DUE CO NS ID ERATION of these petitions for review of several Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for review are DENIED. Each o f these petitions challenges a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) or the BIA denying a motion to reopen based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient to avoid the applicable time and numerical limits or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facieeligibility for the underly in g re lief sought. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c), 1003.23(b). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Petitioners , all natives and citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because they have one or m ore children in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d Cir. 2008), we co nclude there was no error in the BIA’s decisions. Although the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioners here, two petit io ners are fromThe petitioners in Sh ua ng Sh i Q u v . Holder , No. 07-3507-ag; 2 and Su Zhen Weng v. Holder , No. 07-4914-ag. The petitioner s in Shuang Shi Qu v. Holder , No. 07-3507-ag; 3 Qi Duan Sun v. Holder , No. 07-4169-ag; Hui Li, Mei Xian Li v. Holder , Nos. 07-4747-ag (L), 07-4748-ag (Con); Qiao Ying Chen, ChiHsun Chen v. Holder , Nos. 07-5674-ag (L), 07 -5 676-ag (Con); Tai Huan Li v. Holder , No. 08-2264-ag; Ying Lin v. Holder , No. 08-5166- ag; and Yan Tang v. Holder , No. 08-5169-ag. The petitioner in Zhou Jin Ni v. Holder , No. 07-5755-ag also argues that he was eligible to file a successive asylum ap plication; however, we decline to consider that argument because it was not exhausted before the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007). The petitioners in Cui Ping Lin v. Holder , No. 08 -2 539-ag, 4 and Liqun Chen v. Holder , No. 09-0608-ag. -5- 08232010-1-23 Zhejiang Province. Regardles s, as with the evidence 2 discussed in Jian Hui Shao , the evidence they have submitted related to Zhejiang P rovince either does not discuss forced sterilizations or references isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated to the petitioners. See id. at 160-61, 171-72. To the extent that seven of the petitioners argue that 3 th ey were eligible to file successive asylum applications based solely on their ch an ged personal circumstances, their arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). We decline any request by petitioners to consider 4 evidence that was not included in the administrativ e record and we will not remand for the agency to consider suchThe petitioners in Gong An Chen v. Ho lder , No. 08-0346-ag; 5 Rong Yao Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , No. 08-1345-ag; and Xiu Qin Cao v. Holder , No. 09-1207-ag. The petitioner in Tai Huan Li v. Holder , No. 08-2264-ag. 6 The petitioner in Liqun Chen v. Holder , No. 09-0608-ag. 7 The petitioners in Qi Duan Sun v. Holder , No. 07-4169-ag; Al 8 Wha Lin v. Holder , No. 08-0663-ag; Cui Ping Lin v. Holder , No. 08- 2539-ag; and Yan Tang v. Holder , No. 08-5169-ag. -6- 08232010-1-23 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); see also Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales , 494 F.3d 260, 269 (2d Cir. 2007). To the extent that the BIA declined to credit petitioners’ unauthenticated 5 evidence in light of an un derlying adverse credibility determination, the BIA did not abuse its discretion. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). Two of t he p etitioners argue that the BIA applied an incorrect burden of proof by requiring them to establish more than their prima facie eligibility f or relief. However, in one of those cases, the BIA explicitly considered the 6 petitioner’s prima facie eligibility for relief and, in the other case, the BIA reasonably found that the petitioner 7 failed to demonstrate changed country conditions excusing the untimely filing of her motion to reope n. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); see also INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). Some of the petition er s argue that the BIA erred by 8 failing to reopen their proceedings to permit them to adjust-7- 08232010-1-23 status; however, we lack jurisdiction to review such determinations. Because pe titioners’ motions were unquestionably untimely, and eligibility to adjust status is not a statutory basis for excusing the untimely filing of a motion to reopen,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), th ose petitioners were necessarily invoking the BIA’s authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte , see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). The BIA’s determination
as to whether it will exercise that authority is entirely discretionary and thus beyond the scope of our jurisdiction. See Ali , 448 F.3d at 518. 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 pe titions 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 Ru le of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk