13-3218 (L)

Cheng v. Holder

BIA

Burr, IJ

A070 701 933

A073 174 512

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 3rd 4 day of November, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 DENNIS JACOBS,

9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________

12

13 ZHEN FU CHENG, SHU LING NI,

14 Petitioners,

15 13-3218 (L),

16 v. 13-3237 (Con)

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22 

23 FOR PETITIONERS: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Katherine E. Clark, Senior

27 Litigation Counsel; Dawn S. Conrad,

08152014-B-3-6
1 Trial Attorney, Office of

2 Immigration Litigation, United

3 States Department of Justice,

4 Washington, D.C.

5

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

7 two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is

8 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for

9 review are DENIED. 

10 Petitioners Zhen Fu Cheng and Shu Ling Ni, natives and

11 citizens of China, seek review of two August 2013, decisions

12 of the BIA, affirming the February 6, 2012, decision of

13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sarah M. Burr, denying their

14 applications for relief under the Convention Against Torture

15 (“CAT”). In re Zhen Fu Cheng, No. A073 174 512 (B.I.A. Aug.

16 16, 2013), and In re Shu Ling Ni, No. 070 701 933 (B.I.A.

17 Aug. 8, 2013), aff’g Nos. A073 174 512, A070 701 933 (Immig.

18 Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 6, 2012). We assume the parties’

19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

20 of this case.

21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

22 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang

23 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 

24 The applicable standards of review are well established. 

25

08152014-B-3-6 2
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v.

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

3 Petitioners sought relief under the CAT based on their

4 claim that they fear forced sterilization because they have

5 had more than one child in violation of China’s population

6 control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court

7 set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error

8 in the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to

9 demonstrate their eligibility for CAT relief on this basis. 

10 See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-72. 

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are

12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

13 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

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

15 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request

16 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

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

18 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

21

22

23

08152014-B3-6 3