02272012-1-10 10-2933 Qiu & Lin v. Holder


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SU MMARY 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 **QIU FENG ZHENG, AKA QUI FENG ZHENG,** 14 **AKA MA NAN HSUEN v. BUREAU OF** 15 **CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 10-1849-ag** 16 **A077 309 471** 17

____________________________________ 18 19 CHUN GUO CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2010-ag 20 A072 564 910 21

____________________________________ 22 23 MAOLI DONG v. HOLDER, 10-2072-ag 24 A095 377 535 25

____________________________________ 26 27 **LI BIN ZHAO v. HOLDER, 10-2364-ag** 28 **A077 023 117** 29

____________________________________ 30 312 02272012-1-10 **BI-FENG LIU v. HOLDER, 10-2867-ag** 1 **A073 132 497** 2

____________________________________ 3 4 **YUFANG QIU, BAI XIANG LIN** 5 **v. HOLDER, 10-2933-ag** 6 **A096 248 506** 7 **A079 141 366** 8

____________________________________ 9 10 **TAN FENG LING v. HOLDER, 10-3734-ag** 11 **A077 322 844** 12

____________________________________ 13 14 **YONG DA CHEN, AKA YONGDA CHEN,** 15 **AKA LANGDA CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-3821-ag** 16 **A073 161 895** 17

____________________________________ 18 19 **MAO ZHOU LIN, AKA** 20 **MAO ZAI LIN v. HOLDER, 10-3993-ag** 21 **A077 309 112** 22

____________________________________ 23 24 **XIU MEI ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-4123-ag** 25 **A095 365 126** 26

____________________________________ 27 28 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 29 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 30 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for 31 review are DENIED. 32 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 33 BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of 34 review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 35 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 363 02272012-1-10 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. Moreover, the BIA did not err in 7 declining to credit the petitioners’ unauthenticated 8 evidence in light of the agency’s underlying adverse 9 credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales , 10 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). 11
In Maoli Dong v. Holder, No. 10-2072-ag, **(3)** we are 12 without jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s argument 13 that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings as a 14 matter of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 15 518 (2d Cir. 2006). In Li Bin Zhao v. Holder , No. 10-2364- 16
ag, **(4)** there is no merit to the petitioner’s argument that 17 motions to reopen seeking relief under the Convention 18 Against Torture (“CAT”) are excused from the applicable time 19 and numerical limitations. See8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) 20 (providing the time and numerical limitations applicable to 21 motions to reopen); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2) (excusing 224 02272012-1-10 the time and numerical limitations for filing a motion to 1 reopen to seek CAT relief only for aliens whose removal 2 orders became final prior to March 22, 1999 and who moved to 3 reopen proceedings before June 21, 1999)). 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