11-4858 Zheng 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 3 rd** **day of February, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

____________________________________ 11 12 JOHN JIN CHEN, AKA ZUN JIN CHEN 10-4185 13 v. HOLDER, 14 A072 460 750 15

____________________________________ 16 17 QI CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4983 18 A073 674 220 19

____________________________________ 20 21 MEI MEI CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1210 22 A099 589 759 23

____________________________________ 24 25 **YONG LIN v. HOLDER 11-3224** 26 **A072 763 849** 27

____________________________________ 28 QIU DAN CHI v. HOLDER 11-3817 29 A077 050 604 30

____________________________________ 31 JI SHUN ZHENG, AKA QI SHEN JENG, 11-4858 32 v. HOLDER, 33 A077 977 705 34

____________________________________ 35YU BIAO WENG v. HOLDER, 12-706 1 A073 646 956 2

____________________________________ 3 4 **DIAN SHAN JIANG v. HOLDER 12-1808** 5 **A073 576 384** 6

____________________________________ 7 8 YOANG-QING WONG, AKA YONG-QING 12-2021 9 WANG, AKA YUN SOON KIM v. HOLDER, 10 A070 011 218 11

____________________________________ 12 13 XIAO YAN DONG v. HOLDER, 12-3141 14 A098 648 027 15

____________________________________ 16 17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 18 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 19 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 20
are DENIED. 21 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 22 BIA that: (1) affirmed a decision of an Immigration Judge 23 (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen; (2) denied a motion to 24 reopen in the first instance; or (3) denied a motion to 25 reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. The applicable 26 standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao 27 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Ke 28 Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d 29 Cir. 2001); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d 30 Cir. 2006). 31

2Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed 1 motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution 2 because they have had one or more children in violation of 3 China’s population control program. For largely the same 4 reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 5 138, we find no error in the agency’s determinations that 6 the petitioners failed to demonstrate either (a) materially 7 changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely or 8 number-barred filing of their motions, or (b) their prima 9 facie eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72. 10
In John Jin Chen v. Holder, 10-4185 **(1)** , and Dian Shan 11 Jiang v. Holder, 12-1808 **(8)** , we find no error in the BIA’s 12 conclusions that petitioners failed to demonstrate 13 materially changed country conditions with regard to China’s 14 treatment of their religious groups or establish their prima 15 facie eligibility for relief on account of their religious 16 practices. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 169-72; see also 17 Matter of S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2008). In 18 Ji Shun Zheng v. Holder, No. 11-4858 **(6)** , and Yu Biao Weng 19 v. Holder, No. 12-706 **(7)** , the BIA did not err in finding 20 that petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie 21 eligibility for relief based on their religious practices 22

3because the evidence they submitted did not demonstrate that 1 Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware 2 of, their practices. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 3 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 4 F.3d at 168. 5 Finally, in Qi Chen v. Holder, 10-4983 **(2)** , Dian Shan 6 Jiang v. Holder, 12-1808 **(8)** , and Yoang-Qing Wong v. Holder, 7 12-2021 **(9)** , the BIA did not err in declining to credit the 8 petitioners’ unauthenticated, individualized evidence in 9 light of the agency’s underlying adverse credibility 10 determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 11 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). 12 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review 13 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 14 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions 15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 16 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 17 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance 18 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and 19 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 20
FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24

4