Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure * 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler as respondent in this case.

091409- 26 07 -49 76 -ag Huang v. Holder BIA A095 467 413 A095 467 414 

### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RULINGS BY SUMMAR Y O RDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OT H E R P A P E R I N W HICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACC OMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECT R O N I C D A T AB ASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 19 day of November, two thousand nine. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON. O. NEWMAN, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges . 12

_________________________________________ 13 14 YA ZHEN HUANG, JIAN GUO ZHENG, 15 Petitioners , 16 17 v. 07-4976-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES * 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent . 22

_________________________________________2 1 FOR PETITIONERS: Steven A. Mundie, Baron, Mundie, & 2 Shelkin, P.C., New York, New York. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant 5 Attorney General; David V. Bernal, 6 Assistant Director; Lindsay E. 7 Williams, Attorney; Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, Civil 9 Division, United States Department 10 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 11 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 5 is DENIED. 1 6 Petitiones Ya Zhen Huang and Jian Guo Zheng, natives 1 7 and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review 1 8 of an October 15, 2007 order of the BIA denying their motion 1 9 to reopen. In re Ya Zhen Huang, Jian Guo Zheng, Nos. A095 2 0 467 413, A095 467 414 (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2007). We assume the 2 1 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 2 procedural history in this case. 2 3 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 2 4 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 2 5 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of 2 6 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we 2 7 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial3 1 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 2 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 The BIA did not err in denying petitioners’ untimely 4 motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 5 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioners argue that they 6 established their prima facie eligibility for relief from 7 removal based on the birth of their U.S. citizen children. 8 However, this argument fails because we have previously 9 reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence similar to that 1 0 which petitioners submitted and have found no error in its 1 1 conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to demonstrate 1 2 a reasonable possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao , 1 3 546 F.3d at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not ourselves 1 4 attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task 1 5 largely within the discretion of the agency”); see also Wei 16 Guang Wang v. BIA , 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting 1 7 that while the BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft1 8 cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time 1 9 and again[,] . . . it may do so in summary fashion without a 2 0 reviewing court presuming that it has abused its 2 1 discretion”). 2 2 Petitioners’ arguments related to the filing of a4 1 successive asylum application, including their equal 2 protection and United Nations Protocol arguments, are 3 without merit. See Yuen Jin v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 143, 156, 4 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 0 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 2 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 1 3 FOR THE COURT: 1 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15 1 6 By:___________________________