06152016-10 

17-2289 

Chen v. Barr 

BIA 

Hom, IJ 

A087 989 093 

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 September, two thousand nineteen. 

PRESENT: 

JON O. NEWMAN,

DENNIS JACOBS, 

PIERRE N. LEVAL,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

QIONG CHEN, 

 Petitioner, 

 

v. 17-2289 

 NAC 

WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Margaret W. Wong, Cleveland, OH. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 

Assistant Director; Lindsay 

Corliss, Trial Attorney, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC. 
2

06282019-4 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 

 Petitioner Qiong Chen, a native and citizen of the 

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 10, 2017, 

BIA decision that affirmed the September 28, 2016, decision 

of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of 

removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 

and cancellation of removal. In re Qiong Chen, No. A087 989 

093 (B.I.A. July 10, 2017), aff’g No. A087 989 093 (Immig. 

Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 28, 2016). We assume the parties’ 

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

in this case. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s 

opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t 

of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 Chen applied for withholding of removal and CAT relief, 

asserting that she will likely be persecuted and tortured 

based on the birth of her U.S. citizen child in violation of 

China’s population control program. The applicable standards 

of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 

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

06282019-4 

 For largely the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui 

Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that 

Chen failed to satisfy her burden for withholding of removal 

and CAT relief. See id. at 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 

444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). As with the evidence 

in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence in Chen’s case, demonstrates 

that family planning officials in Fujian Province use 

economic incentives and punishments to pressure couples to 

comply with the birth control measures, abortions, and 

sterilizations required by the policy and discusses only 

isolated reports of force being used. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 

F.3d at 159-66, 172. 

 Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of 

cancellation of removal based on Chen’s failure to establish 

hardship to a qualifying relative is limited to 

constitutional claims and questions of law, 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. 

Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2008), for which our 

review is de novo, Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d 

Cir. 2009). A question of law may arise when “some facts 

important to the subtle determination of ‘exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship’ have been totally overlooked and 

others have been seriously mischaracterized.” Mendez v. 
4

06282019-4 

Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2009). For 

jurisdiction to attach, however, such claims must be 

colorable. Barco-Sandoval, 516 F.3d at 40-41. 

 There is no merit to Chen’s arguments that the agency 

ignored and mischaracterized evidence in evaluating whether 

her U.S. citizen daughter would suffer “exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship” as required for cancellation of 

removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The IJ did not err in 

concluding that Chen’s daughter could attend a relatively 

inexpensive private school in China because, contrary to 

Chen’s contention, the school did not require a Chinese family 

registry but rather required a residence booklet, which is 

necessarily available to non-Chinese citizens, such as Chen’s 

daughter, given the school’s enrollment of foreign students. 

The IJ’s statement that Chen’s daughter “took classes in 

Chinese and was studying the Chinese language” is not a 

serious mischaracterization of the evidence because, although 

Chen’s daughter was not studying Chinese at the time of the 

hearing, Chen and a witness testified that her daughter had 

taken Mandarin classes one summer and speaks a bit of that 

language. Further, the IJ explicitly considered Chen’s 

daughter’s religion and asthma as well as evidence of 

pollution in China. Finally, contrary to Chen’s contention, 
5

06282019-4 

the record does not contain evidence of the persecution of 

Catholics in her home province. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 

Clerk of Court