06152016-10 

17-2173 

Chen v. Barr 

BIA 

Christensen, IJ 

A201 139 998 

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. 

_____________________________________ 

SHAO QIU CHEN, AKA XIAOQIU CHEN, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 17-2173 

 NAC 

WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, New York, NY. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 

Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 

Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, 

United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC. 
2

06282019-3 

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 Shao Qiu Chen, a native and citizen of the 

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 20, 2017, 

BIA decision that affirmed the September 9, 2016, decision of 

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

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

and cancellation of removal. In re Shao Qiu Chen, No. A201 

139 998 (B.I.A. June 20, 2017), aff’g No. A201 139 998 (Immig. 

Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’ 

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

in this case. 

 Chen applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

relief, asserting that she fears persecution—specifically 

forced sterilization—based on the birth of her children in 

violation of China’s population control program. Under the 

circumstances of 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). The applicable standards of review are well 
3

06282019-3 

established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 

157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 

 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 asylum, 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). While the 

petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, and 

Chen is from Zhejiang Province, Chen’s evidence related to 

Zhejiang Province does not describe the use of force in the 

enforcement of the family planning policy. See id. at 160-

61, 165-66, 171-72. 

 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. 

§ 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. Holder, 
4

06282019-3 

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

attach, however, such claims must be colorable. BarcoSandoval, 516 F.3d at 40-41. 

 Chen’s argument that the agency ignored a psychological 

report discussing her son’s sleepwalking disorder and 

concluding that her children would be at risk for anxiety and 

depression should they move to China is not colorable because 

the IJ explicitly considered the report. See Barco-Sandoval, 

516 F.3d at 40. Because Chen has not established 

constitutional or legal error in the agency’s hardship 

determination, we need not address the agency’s alternative 

bases for denying cancellation of removal—its moral character 

finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 

U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies 

are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 

which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 

 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