11-2285 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 GOVER** **NED 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 12 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 YA QING YANG v. HOLDER 11-1944 13 A073 562 612 14

____________________________________ 15 16 XIU YAN LIN, AKA XIUYAN LIN 11-1993 17 v. HOLDER, 18 A097 660 210 19

____________________________________ 20 21 JIE LIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-2285 22 A070 893 349 23

____________________________________ 24 25 **TIAN JIN ZOU v. HOLDER 12-177** 26 **A077 309 169** 27

____________________________________ 28 29 JIAN LING CHEN v. HOLDER 12-1826 30 A097 740 324 31

____________________________________ 32

11252013-1-101 SHAN YOU ZHENG v. HOLDER, 12-2136 2 A073 557 742 3

____________________________________ 4 5 KONG AN NI, AKA KONG-EN NI 12-2892 6 v. HOLDER, 7 A073 765 987 8

____________________________________ 9 10 **LIN FEI XIE v. HOLDER 12-4675** 11 **A099 683 978** 12

____________________________________ 13 14 YAN QIN CHEN, AKA SHI NI LIN 13-357 15 v. HOLDER, 16 A077 309 082 17

____________________________________ 18 19 XIAO YAN WU, AKA XIAOYAN WU 13-1793 20 v. HOLDER, 21 A075 955 399 22

____________________________________ 23 24 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 25 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 26 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 27
are DENIED. 28 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 29 BIA that: (1) affirmed a decision of an Immigration Judge 30 (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen; (2) denied a motion to 31 reopen in the first instance; or (3) denied a motion to 32 reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. The applicable 33 standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao 34 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Ke 35
2 11252013-1-10Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d 1 Cir. 2001); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d 2 Cir. 2006). 3 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed 4 motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution 5 because they have had one or more U.S. citizen children in 6 violation of China’s population control program. For 7 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui 8 Shao , 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s 9 determinations that the petitioners failed to demonstrate 10 either materially changed country conditions that would 11 excuse the untimely or number-barred filing of their motions 12 or their prima facie eligibility for relief. See id. at 13 158-72. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from 14 Fujian Province, in Jie Lin Chen v. Holder, 11-2285 **(3)** and 15 Lin Fei Xie v. Holder, 12-4675 **(8)** , petitioners are from 16 Zhejiang Province. However, as with the evidence discussed 17 in Jian Hui Shao , the evidence relating to Zhejiang Province 18 is insufficient because it does not discuss the use of force 19 in the enforcement of the family planning policy. See id. 20 at 160-61, 171-72. 21
22

3 11252013-1-10In Xiu Yan Lin v. Holder, 11-1993 **(2)** , Tian Jin Zou v. 1 Holder, 12-177 **(4)** , Jian Ling Chen v. Holder, 12-1826 **(5)** , 2 Lin Fei Xie v. Holder, 12-4675 **(8)** , and Xiao Yan Wu v. 3 Holder, 13-1793 **(10)** , we find no error in the agency’s 4 conclusions that petitioners failed to demonstrate 5 materially changed country conditions with regard to China’s 6 treatment of unregistered religious groups or Falun Gong 7 practitioners. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 169-72; see 8 also Matter of S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2008). 9
In Yan Qin Chen v. Holder, 13-357 **(9)** , the BIA did not err 10 in declining to credit the petitioner’s unauthenticated or 11 unsworn individualized evidence in light of the agency’s 12 underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen 13 Zheng v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). 14 Finally, in Jie Lin Chen v. Holder, 11-2285 **(3)** , we 15 find no error in the agency’s conclusion that petitioner’s 16 motion to rescind the IJ’s in absentia deportation order was 17 untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); see also 18 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), and that she failed to 19 demonstrate due diligence in pursuing rescission based on 20 her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, see Rashid v. 21 Mukasey, 533 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2008);see also Jian Hua 22 Wang v. BIA, 508 F.3d 710, 715 (2d Cir. 2007). 23
4 11252013-1-10For 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 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

5 11252013-1-10