11-1604-ag Lin 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 

### United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 

### New York, on the 2**nd**

### day of August, two thousand twelve. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### DENNIS JACOBS, 7 

### Chief Judge**,** 8 

### JON O. NEWMAN, 9 

### PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 

### Circuit Judges**.** 11



### _______________________________________ 12 13 

### XIAO JIE ZHOU v. HOLDER, 10-1350-ag 14 

### A093 394 030 15



### _______________________________________ 16 17 

### SHAO LIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2911-ag 18 

### A099 938 936 19



### _______________________________________ 20 21 

### WEN QING YANG v. HOLDER, 10-3684-ag 22 

### A099 930 548 23



### _______________________________________ 24 25 

### DIANQIN JIANG v. HOLDER, 10-4919-ag 26 

### A089 253 646 27



### _______________________________________ 28

04302012-1-101 

### SHUYING CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-13-ag 2 

### A095 164 157 3



### _______________________________________ 4 5 

### WEN QING CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1015-ag 6 

### A099 928 261 7



### _______________________________________ 8 9 

### SHU-CHIN LIN v. HOLDER, 11-1604-ag 10 

### A073 034 379 11



### _______________________________________ 12 13 

### ZOU-QIANG GAO v. HOLDER, 11-2062-ag 14 

### A072 460 888 15



### _______________________________________ 16 17 

### MING KUI XIAO v. HOLDER, 11-2303-ag 18 

### A072 766 265 19



### _______________________________________ 20 21 

### FENG ZHI LIN v. HOLDER, 11-2572-ag 22 

### A089 254 238 23



### _______________________________________ 24 25 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 26 

### Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 27 

### ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 28


### are DENIED. 29 

### Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 30 

### BIA affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) 31 

### denying asylum and related relief. The applicable standards 32 

### of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. 33 

### Mukasey,546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 34



### 2 04302012-1-101 

### Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought 2 

### relief from removal based on their claims that they fear 3 

### persecution because they have had one or more children in 4 

### the United States, which they contend is in violation of 5 

### China’s population control program. For largely the same 6 

### reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao , we find no 7 

### error in the agency’s decisions. See id. at 158-72. 8 

### We also conclude that the agency did not abuse its 9 

### discretion when, in certain cases, it declined to credit 10 

### letters from a few individuals who claimed that they had 11 

### been required to undergo sterilization because (i) the 12 

### letters were unauthenticated, (ii) Petitioners failed to 13 

### demonstrate that the circumstances of the authors were 14 

### similar to their own, and (iii) the agency in other cases 15 

### has rejected such isolated reports of forced sterilization 16 

### in light of significant country evidence to the contrary. 17 

### See, e.g. , Mao Hui Dong, No. A099 934 664 (B.I.A. Feb. 9, 18 

### 2011); see also Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 153, 159-61, 172. 19 

### For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review 20 

### are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 21 

### removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions 22



### 3 04302012-1-10

### is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 

### these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 2 

### for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance 3 

### with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and 4 

### Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 5


### FOR THE COURT: 6 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8 9



### 4 04302012-1-10