Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), 1 Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted as respondent where necessary.

09072010-1-20 08-1238 (L) Ou v. Holder 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY 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 AN Y PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, hel dat the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 24 day of January, two thousand eleven. th PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

Chief Judge , JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges .

_______________________________________ FENG YAN CHEN v. HOLDER, 07-4870-ag 1 A097 150 142

_______________________________________ MEI JUAN ZHANG, AKA MEI JUAN ZHENG v. 07-5589-ag HOLDER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, A077 978 069

_______________________________________ WEN QIN OU v. HOLDER, 08-1238-ag (L); A098 977 133 08-4314-ag (Con)

_______________________________________2 09072010-1-20 _______________________________________ YANNA CHEN, AKA YAN NA CHEN, 08-3715-ag (L); HAN TING LIN v. HOLDER, 09-1991-ag (Con) A099 564 538 A099 564 539

_______________________________________ ZHONG DI GAO v. HOLDER, 08-4392-ag (L); A099 427 368 09-2098-ag (Con)

_______________________________________ KE LING ZHANG, SU PING ZHANG v. 08-4469-ag HOLDER, A094 041 848 A098 689 330

_______________________________________ SU JIE HUANG v. HOLDER, 08-5893-ag A094 046 294

_______________________________________ LI ZHEN ZHU v. HOLDER, 09-0456-ag A099 568 254

_______________________________________ REN CHAI YANG, AKA RENCHAI YANG, 09-1661-ag JING CHUN CHEN, AKA JINGCHUN CHEN, AKA HAI RONG LIN, AKA HAIRONG LIN, AKA HAI LIN v. HOLDER, A099 930 937 A099 930 938

_______________________________________ CAIYUN WANG v. HOLDER, 09-2115-ag A096 267 343

_______________________________________ XIAO PING CHEN, YONG DI LI v. 09-2287-ag HOLDER, A099 320 420 A099 320 421

_______________________________________3 09072010-1-20 _______________________________________ TING YI LIN v. HOLDER, 09-2849-ag A075 780 271

_______________________________________ BI YUN HUANG, AKA BI YUN YUANG, 09-2939-ag AKA VI YUN HUANG v. HOLDER, A094 813 601

_______________________________________ RU CHEN v. HOLDER, 09-2998-ag A099 927 476

_______________________________________ XIAO ZHEN YANG v. HOLDER, 09-3025-ag A093 408 725

_______________________________________ BI HUI LIN v. HOLDER, 09-3042-ag A094 046 300

_______________________________________ YUN ZHI CHI v. HOLDER, 09-3329-ag A099 928 058

_______________________________________ LIN WU, LI GUANG DONG v. HOLDER, 09-3397-ag A078 736 061 A099 930 936

_______________________________________ MEI YING WU, YONG XIU CHEN v. HOLDER, 09-3459-ag A093 397 371 A093 397 372

_______________________________________ RONG LI, BAO LU LIN v. HOLDER, 09-3550-ag A097 291 042 A099 592 334

________________________________________________The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder , Nos. 08-1238-ag (L), 2 08-4314-ag (Con); Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder , Nos. 08-3715- ag (L), 09-1991-ag (Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder , Nos. 08-4392-ag (L), 09-2098-ag (Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder , No. 08-5893-ag; Li Zhen Zhu v. Holder , No. 09-0456-ag; Ren Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen v. Holder , No. 09-1661-ag; Xiao Ping Chen, Yon g Di Li v. Holder , No. 09-2287-ag; Ting Yi Lin v. Holder , No. 09-2849-ag; Bi Yun Huang v. Holder , No. 09-2939-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder , No. 09-2998-ag; Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder , No. 09-3025-ag; Yun Zhi Chi v. Holder , No. 09- 3329-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder , No. 09-3397-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder , No. 09-3550-ag. 4 09072010-1-20 UPON DUE CONSIDERATIONof these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for review are DENIED. Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA either affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and related relief or re v e r s ing the IJ’s decisi o n g r a n t i n gr e l i e f . S o m e o ft h e p e t i t i o n e r s a l so 2 challenge decisi o ns of the BIA denying motions to remand or reopen. In t h o s e c ases in which the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision denying relief, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions, see Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008), and in those cases in which the BIA reversed the IJ’s decision g r a n t i n gr e l i e fo rd e n i e da m o t i o n i n t h e f i r st instance, we review only the decision of the BIA, see Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicableThe peti tioners inKe Ling Zhang, Su Ping Zhang v. Holder , 3 No. 08-4469-ag; Su Jie Huang v. Holder , No. 08-5893-ag; Ting Yi Lin v. Holder , No. 09-2849-ag; and Ru Chen v. Holder , No. 09-2998-ag. The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder , Nos. 08-1238-ag (L), 4 08-4314-ag (Con); Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder , Nos. 08-3715- ag (L), 09-1991-ag (Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder , Nos. 08-4392-ag (L), 09-2098-ag (Con); Li Zhen Zhu v. Holder , No. 09-0456-ag; Ren Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen v. Holder , No. 09-1661-ag; Xiao Ping Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder , No. 09-2287-ag; Bi Yun Huang v. Holder , 5 09072010-1-20 standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioners, all natives and citizens o f C h i na, sought relief from removal based on their claim that they fear persecut i o n b ecause they have had one or more children in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s decisions. See id. at 158-72. Although the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioner s h ere, some petitioners are from Zhejiang Province. Regardless, as 3

w ith the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao , t h e e v i d ence they have submitted relating to Zhejiang Province either does not discuss forced sterilizations or re f erences isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated to the petitioners. See id. at 160-61, 171-72. Some of the petitioners argue that the BIA failed to give 4No. 09-2939-ag; Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder , No. 09-3025-ag; Bi Hui

Lin v. Holder , No. 09-3042-ag; Yun Zhi Chi v. Holder , No. 09-3329- ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder , No. 09-3397-ag; Mei Ying Wu, Yong Xiu Chen v. Holder , No. 09-3459-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder , No. 09-3550-ag. The petitioner in Zhong Di Gao v. Holder , No s . 0 8 -4392-ag 5 (L), 09-2098-ag (Con). 6 09072010-1-20 sufficient consideration to the statement of Jin Fu Chen, who alleged that he suffered forced sterilization after his return to China based on the two children born to his wife in Japan. A prior panel of this Court has remanded a petition making a similar claim so that Jin Fu Ch e n ’ s s t atement (which was submitted to the BIA after a r e m and) could be considered by the IJ. See Zheng v. Holder , No. 07-3970-ag (2d Cir. Jan. 15, 2010). Since th e r e mand in Zheng , the BIA has repeatedly concluded that Jin Fu Ch e n ’ s statement does not support a claim of a well-founded fear of persecution. Accordingly, it is clear that further consideration of the statement in cases in which the IJ or the BIA f a i l e d t o consider it would not change the result. S e e S h u n f u Li v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the agency’s concl u s ion concerning the probative force of the statement d i dn ot involve any error of law. Addi t i o n a l l y, contrary to one petitioner’s argument, there was n o e rror in the agency’s 5 decision declining to credit a similar statement from Mei YunThe petitioners in Fen g Ya nCh env . Ho l der , No. 07-4870-ag; 6 Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder , Nos. 08-3715-ag (L), 09-1991-ag (Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder , Nos. 08-4392-ag (L), 09-2098-ag (Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder , N o . 0 8

- 5 893-ag; L i Zhen Zhu v. Holder , No. 09-0456-ag; Ren Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen v. Holder , No. 09-1661-ag; Caiyun Wang v. Holder , N o . 0 9

- 2 1 1 5 -ag; Xiao Ping Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder , No. 09-2287-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder , No. 09-2998-ag; Bi Hui Lin v. Holder , No. 09-3042-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder , No. 09-3397-ag; Mei Ying Wu , Yon g Xiu Chen v. Holder , No. 09-3459-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder , No. 09- 3550-ag. 7 09072010-1-20 Chen because it was a photocopy from an unrelated case. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). Some of the petitioners also argue that the BIA erred by 6 improperly conducting de novo review of determinations made by an IJ. Many of them rely on a recent decision of the Third Circuit , r u l i n g , i n t h e c o n t e x t o fa c l a i mu n d e rt he Convention Against Torture, that the BIA must review for clear error findings of fact, includin g predictions of future events, but may review de novo conclusions of la w a s to whether the facts found satisfy a particular legal standard. See Kaplun v. Attorney General , 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010). Their claims lack merit. The BIA has not reviewed de novo any of the IJ’s factual findings. Instead, the BIA has concluded,

on de novo review, that the facts, as found by the IJ, do not meet the legal standard of an objectively reasonable fear ofThe petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder , Nos. 08-1238-ag (L), 7 08-4314-ag (Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder , No. 08-5893-ag; Li Zhen Zhu v. Holder , No. 09-0456-ag; Ting Yi Lin v. Holder , No. 09-2849- ag; Bi Yun Huang v. Holder , No. 09-2939-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder , No. 09-2998-ag; Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder , No. 09-3025-ag; Yun Zhi Chi v. Holder , No. 09-3329-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder , No. 09- 3397-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder , No. 09-3550-ag. 8 09072010-1-20 persecution. That approach is entirely consiste nt with the applicable regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3). See Jian Hui S hao , 5 4 6 F . 3 d a t 1 6 2

- 6 3 ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e B I A d i d not

erron e o u s l y conduct de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings by making “a legal determination that, while [petitioners’] credible testimony was sufficient to demonstrate a genuine subjective fear of future persecution,

more was needed to demonstrate the objective reasonableness of that fear”). In deny i n g some of the petitioners’ motions, the BIA 7 reasonably found that certain of the newly submitted documents were previously obtainable, see INS v. Ab u du , 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988), or declined to re view evidence submitted for the first time on appeal abs e n t a n y a rgument as to why such evidence merited further consideration on remand, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv); see also Matter of Fedorenko , 19 I. & N. Dec. 57, 74 (BIA 1984) . Regardless, the evidence submitted in support of the petitioners’ motions was largely cumulative ofThe petitioner in Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder , No. 09-3025-ag. 8 9 09072010-1-20 the evidence in the record and not materially distinguishable from the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao. Finally, one petitioner argues that the IJ e r r e d by 8 rejecting her request for an adjournment to submit evidence demonstrating that her relatives had been forcibly sterilized. We find that remand for the BIA to consider pet i t i o n e r ’s argument would be futile because the IJ allowed her to testify on the subject and her relatives were not similarly situated. See Shunfu Li , 5 2 9 F . 3 da t 150; see also Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 160-61. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court pr e v i o usly granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petit i o n s is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Proce dure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk