Case Name: WEN ZHEN WANG, Xiang Chen, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-29
Citations: 581 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: Nos. 12-1889, 12-1841
Parties: WEN ZHEN WANG, Xiang Chen, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
WEN ZHEN WANG, Xiang Chen, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 12-1889, 12-1841.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 29, 2014.
Jan Allen Reiner, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Matthew A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioners Wen Zhen Wang and Xiang Chen, natives and citizens of China, seek review of two April 5, 2012, decisions of the BIA, denying their motion to reopen. In re Wen Zhen Wang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2012); In re Xiang Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2012). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of these cases.
The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioners filed a motion to reopen based on their claim that they fear forced sterilization and economic persecution because they have had more than one child in the United States, which they contend violates China's population control program. We find no error in the BIA's determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for asylum or related relief. See id. at 158-72.
As the BIA noted, petitioners can avoid the social compensation fees assessed to violators of the family planning policy by declining to register their U.S. citizen children as residents. See id. at 171. We are sympathetic to the serious medical conditions suffered by two of petitioners' children. Nevertheless, the BIA did not err in finding that petitioners would not be forced to register their children in order to receive free public health care to treat their medical conditions. Petitioners' evidence indicated that the Chinese government does not actually provide free health care to a majority of registered residents, and that, even without registering their children, petitioners would have access to health care similar to that available to registered residents.
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).