02272012-11-20 11-1961-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 23**rd**

### day of July, 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 

### MING SHENG ZHU v. HOLDER, 10-4432-ag 14 

### A079 673 541 15



### _______________________________________ 16 17 

### BEN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4718-ag 18 

### A072 473 754 19



### _______________________________________ 20 21 

### EN CHEN, AKA YIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4742-ag 22 

### A077 309 013 23



### _______________________________________ 24 25 

### SAI YING CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4997-ag 26 

### A098 775 949 27



### _______________________________________ 28

### 2 02272012-11-20 1 

### ZU HUA LIU v. HOLDER, 10-5151-ag 2 

### A077 297 009 3



### _______________________________________ 4 5 

### NAI YU JIANG v. HOLDER, 10-5154-ag 6 

### A078 745 496 7



### _______________________________________ 8 9 

### WANG ZHANG, AKA WANG ZHENG v. HOLDER, 11-443-ag 10 

### A072 455 620 11



### _______________________________________ 12 13 

### CHANG LONG UO, 14 

### AKA CHANG-LONG OU v. HOLDER, 11-464-ag 15 

### A076 505 684 16



### _______________________________________ 17 18 

### WAN PING LIN, YAN QING ZHU v. HOLDER, 11-1638-ag 19 

### A070 892 381 20 

### A070 868 369 21



### _______________________________________ 22 23 

### QING YOU CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1961-ag 24 

### A073 173 328 25



### _______________________________________ 26 27 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 28 

### Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 29 

### ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for 30 

### review are DENIED. 31 

### Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 32 

### BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of 33 

### review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 34 

### 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 35

### 3 02272012-11-20 

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

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

### persecution because they have had one or more children in 3 

### violation of China’s population control program. For 4 

### largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui 5 

### Shao , 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. 6 

### See id.at 158-72. 7 

### Although the BIA may err in rejecting family planning 8 

### notices, such as those submitted in some of these cases, 9 

### solely based on a failure to authenticate pursuant to 10 

### 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 11 

### 428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005), it does not abuse its 12 

### discretion in according diminished weight to notices that 13 

### have not been authenticated by any means, see Xiao Ji Chen 14 

### v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 15 

### 2006). Regardless, remand to the BIA for consideration of 16 

### the family planning notices would be futile because the 17 

### notices merely referenced the family planning policy’s 18 

### mandatory sterilization requirement without any indication 19 

### that such sterilizations are performed by force. See Shunfu 20 

### Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding 21 

### that remand is futile when the Court can confidently 22

### 4 02272012-11-20 

### “predict that the agency would reach the same decision 1 

### absent the errors that were made” (internal quotation marks 2 

### and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 3 

### 165, 172. 4 

### For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review 5 

### are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 6 

### removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions 7 

### is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 8 

### these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 9 

### for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance 10 

### with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and 11 

### Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 12


### FOR THE COURT: 13 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14 15 16