10-3819 (L); 12-3086 

Chen; Chen v. Sessions 

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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. 

PRESENT: 

JON O. NEWMAN,

DENNIS JACOBS, 

PIERRE N. LEVAL,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

HUAN CHEN, AKA MU YANG PAN, 

CHENG JIANG, AKA CHANG JANG v. SESSIONS, 10-3819(L), 

A090 347 477/478 11-2004(Con) 

____________________________________

ZHONG DUAN CHEN v. SESSIONS, 12-3086 

A073 178 857 

_____________________________________ 

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. 
2

10242016-7-8 

 These petitions challenge BIA decisions that reversed 

grants of asylum by Immigration Judges (“IJ”), and declined to 

reopen or remand to raise new bases for asylum. The applicable 

standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao 

v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see 

also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016). 

 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, applied for 

asylum and sought reopening based on claims that they fear 

persecution because they have violated China’s population 

control program with the birth of their children in the United 

States. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth 

in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 156-73, we find no error in the 

BIA’s determination on de novo review that Petitioners failed 

to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of persecution 

based on the birth of their children in the United States. 

 Insofar as Petitioners’ motions to reopen and remand were 

based on their practice of religion or Falun Gong in the United 

States, the BIA did not err in finding that they failed to 

demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief. The 

Petitioners did not submit evidence that Chinese authorities 

are aware of, or likely to become aware of, their practices. 
3

10242016-7-8 

See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); 

see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are 

DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stays of removal 

that the Court previously granted in these petitions are 

VACATED, and any pending motions in these petitions are 

DISMISSED as moot. Any pending requests for oral argument in 

these petitions are 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