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.**  **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 November, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ZHEN FU CHENG, SHU LING NI,** 13 Petitioners**,** 14 **13-3218 (L),** 15 **v. 13-3237 (Con)** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONERS: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Katherine E. Clark, Senior** 26 **Litigation Counsel; Dawn S. Conrad,** 27

08152014-B-3-6**Trial Attorney, Office of** 1 **Immigration Litigation, United** 2 **States Department of Justice,** 3 **Washington, D.C.** 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 6 two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is 7 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for 8 review are DENIED. 9 Petitioners Zhen Fu Cheng and Shu Ling Ni, natives and 10 citizens of China, seek review of two August 2013, decisions 11 of the BIA, affirming the February 6, 2012, decision of 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sarah M. Burr, denying their 13 applications for relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Zhen Fu Cheng, No. A073 174 512 (B.I.A. Aug. 15 16, 2013), and In re Shu Ling Ni , No. 070 701 933 (B.I.A. 16 Aug. 8, 2013),aff’gNos. A073 174 512, A070 701 933 (Immig. 17 Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 6, 2012). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 of this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 21 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 22 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 23 The applicable standards of review are well established. 24

25

2 08152014-B-3-6See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);see also Jian Hui Shao v. 1 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 Petitioners sought relief under the CAT based on their 3 claim that they fear forced sterilization because they have 4 had more than one child in violation of China’s population 5 control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court 6 set forth in Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d 138, we find no error 7 in the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to 8 demonstrate their eligibility for CAT relief on this basis. 9 See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 158-72. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are 11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 12 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions 13 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 14 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 15 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance 16 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and 17 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 18
FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20 21 22 23

3 08152014-B3-6