1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney

General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted where necessary.

08012011-1-28

09-4795-ag

Zhang 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 for

the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United

States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on

the 23rd day of November, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

DENNIS JACOBS,

Chief Judge,

JON O. NEWMAN,

PIERRE N. LEVAL,

Circuit Judges. 

____________________________________

SHITENG DONG v. HOLDER,1 08-3018-ag

A073 557 296 

____________________________________

JINSAI GAO v. HOLDER, 09-4028-ag

A073 651 682

____________________________________

MIN XIU HAN v. HOLDER, 09-4074-ag

A095 476 767

____________________________________

MING ZHONG ZHANG, A.K.A. MINGZHONG

ZHANG v. HOLDER, 09-4795-ag

A072 182 417
08012011-1-28 -2-

____________________________________

QIU MEI WANG, DING TIAN SHI 

v. HOLDER, 09-5116-ag (L);

A097 852 121 09-5152-ag(Con)

A073 133 332

____________________________________

 

YUSHEN JIANE, A.K.A. YU ZHEN JIANG,

a.k.a. KEIKO AKI SADA v. HOLDER, 09-5264-ag

A072 830 286

____________________________________

FENG MEI LIN v. HOLDER, 10-29-ag

A077 318 283

____________________________________

NENG QUAN WANG v. HOLDER, 10-57-ag

A099 927 095

____________________________________

YUN LI v. HOLDER, 10-168-ag

A074 235 378

____________________________________

 

LIN YING ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-295-ag

A077 998 402

____________________________________

XIU JING WANG v. HOLDER, 10-475-ag

A073 185 389

____________________________________

 

MIN XING LIN v. HOLDER, 10-965-ag

A077 714 475

____________________________________

SHU GUI CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-968-ag

A073 608 654

____________________________________

XIN YAO LIU v. HOLDER, 10-1032-ag

A073 568 404

____________________________________
08012011-1-28 -3-

YE LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1322-ag

A072 054 302

____________________________________

HUI YONG ZHOU v. HOLDER, 10-1407-ag

A070 528 767

____________________________________

HUA LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1413-ag

A099 589 605

____________________________________

ZHIFANG ZCANG-CHEN, A.K.A. ZHI-FANG

CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-1454-ag

A074 324 611

____________________________________

YI LUAN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1501-ag

A074 234 673

____________________________________

 

XIN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1911-ag

A078 016 148

____________________________________

YUAN XIU LI v. HOLDER, 10-2033-ag

A072 780 314

____________________________________

GUO YAN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2306-ag

A076 506 678

____________________________________

 

ZHONG YAN ZHENG v. HOLDER, ET AL., 10-2362-ag

A072 485 094

____________________________________

ER SHENG LAN v. HOLDER, 10-2431-ag

A075 776 712

____________________________________

TIANXING ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-2462-ag

A073 676 625

____________________________________
08012011-1-28 -4-

JINBEI ZHAO, A.K.A. KAZUMI MILYATA

v. HOLDER, 10-2526-ag

A077 107 399

____________________________________

HENG-LUN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2633-ag

A073 523 956

____________________________________

LI MIN WEI v. HOLDER, 10-2704-ag

A073 042 018

____________________________________

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for review are DENIED.

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA

either affirming the decision of an immigration judge denying a

motion to reopen or denying a motion to reopen in the first

instance. The applicable standards of review by this Court are

well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,

168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions

to reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because

they have one or more children in violation of China’s coercive

population control program. For largely the same reasons as this

Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-73, we find no

error in the BIA’s decisions. While the petitioners in Jian Hui

Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioners
2The petitioner in Xiu Jing Wang v. Holder, No. 10-475-ag.

3The petitioners in Ming Zhong Zhang v. Holder, No. 09-4795-ag; Feng Mei

Lin v. Holder, No. 10-29-ag; Xiu Jing Wang v. Holder, No. 10-475-ag; Min Xing

Lin v. Holder, No. 10-965-ag; Xin Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1911-ag; Yuan Xiu Li

v. Holder, No. 10-2033-ag; and Tianxing Zheng v. Holder, No. 10-2462-ag.

4The petitioners in Hua Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1413-ag; and Li Min Wei v.

Holder, No. 10-2704-ag.

08012011-1-28 -5-

here, one of the petitioners2 is from Zhejiang Province. As with

the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao related to Fujian

Province, her evidence related to Zhejiang Province was deficient

in some instances because it does not discuss forced

sterilizations and in the remainder because it references isolated

incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly

situated to the petitioner. See id. at 160-61, 170-71. The BIA

did not err in declining to credit some of the petitioners’3

unauthenticated evidence in light of an underlying adverse

credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500

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

Two of the petitioners4 argue that the agency applied an

incorrect burden of proof by requiring them to establish a

certainty of persecution. To the contrary, in those cases, the

agency either reasonably relied on their failure to demonstrate

changed country conditions or explicitly applied the appropriate

prima facie standard. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168. 
5The petitioners in Shu Gui Chen v. Holder, No. 10-968-ag; Ye Lin v.

Holder, No. 10-1322-ag; Hui Yong Zhou v. Holder, No. 10-1407-ag, and Heng-Lun

Chen v. Holder, No. 10-2633-ag.

08012011-1-28 -6-

Four of the petitioners5 argue that the BIA erred in

discounting notices they submitted, purportedly issued by family

planning officials, solely because they were unauthenticated.

While the agency may err in rejecting a document solely based on

the alien’s failure to properly authenticate the document pursuant

to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428

F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005), the notices were not material to

petitioners’ claims because they merely referenced the family

planning policy’s mandatory sterilization requirement without

indicating that such sterilizations are performed by force, see

Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 165, 172. 

In Feng Mei Lin v. Holder, No. 10-29-ag, we decline to either

consider the extra-record evidence petitioner submitted or remand

for the agency to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); see also

Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2007).

Because the agency did not err in finding that the petitioners in

JinSai Gao v. Holder, No. 09-4028-ag, Neng Quan Wang v. Holder,

No. 10-57-ag, and Yi Luan Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1501-ag, failed

to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief, and

because that finding was dispositive of their motions to reopen,

we need not consider the additional arguments raised in their

briefs. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168. 
6The petitioners in Shiteng Dong v. Holder, No. 08-3018-ag; and Guo Yan

Chen v. Holder, No. 10-2306-ag.

08012011-1-28 -7-

We are without jurisdiction to consider two of the petitions6

to the extent they challenge the agency’s underlying denial of the

petitioners’ applications for asylum and related relief because

petitioners did not timely petition for review of those decisions.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of

Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).

 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 petitions 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 Rule of Appellate

Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk