* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is

automatically substituted for former Attorney General

Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

08232010-27

08-0633-ag

Zhou v. Holder

BIA

A098 272 444

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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 27th 4 day of October, two thousand ten.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 Chief Judge,

9 JON O. NEWMAN,

10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _________________________________________

13

14 XIAO HONG ZHOU,

15 Petitioner, 

16

17 v. 08-0633-ag

18 NAC 

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,* 20

21 Respondent.

22 _________________________________________
08232010-27 2

1 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York.

2

3 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant

4 Attorney General; Michael P.

5 Lindemann, Assistant Director;

6 Christopher C. Fuller, Senior

7 Litigation Counsel, Office of

8 Immigration Litigation, United

9 States Department of Justice,

10 Washington, D.C.

11

12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

15 is DENIED.

16 Xiao Hong Zhou, a native and citizen of China, seeks

17 review of a January 11, 2008, BIA order denying her motion

18 to reopen. In re Xiao Hong Zhou, No. A098 272 444 (B.I.A.

19 Jan. 11, 2008). Zhou’s motion to reopen was based on her

20 claim that she fears persecution on account of the birth of

21 her U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family

22 planning policy. The government argues that we lack

23 jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s denial of

24 Zhou’s motion to reopen because the agency pretermitted as

25 untimely her original asylum application based on the birth

26 of her U.S. citizen children. We assume hypothetical

27 jurisdiction in this case because “the jurisdictional issues

28 are complex and the substance of the claim is . . . plainly
08232010-27 3

1 without merit.” Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433

2 F.3d 332, 338 n.2 (2d Cir. 2006). 

3 For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in

4 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008),

5 we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying Zhou’s motion

6 to reopen. See id. at 168-72. Although Zhou is from

7 Zhejiang Province and the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao are

8 from Fujian Province, before the agency, as in her counseled

9 brief to this Court, Zhou relied on the evidence considered

10 in Jian Hui Shao and country conditions evidence related to

11 provinces other than Zhejiang. Additionally, as with the

12 evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the record evidence

13 related to Zhejiang Province either does not discuss forced

14 sterilization or references isolated incidents in which

15 individuals not similarly situated to Zhou were persecuted. 

16 See id. at 160-61. 

17 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is

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

19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
08232010-27 4

1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5

6