Case Name: XIA LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 4
Docket Number: 10-3365
Parties: XIA LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
XIA LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
10-3365
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 3, 2017
FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Xia Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of (1) a February 19, 2009, decision of the BIA that reversed the January 23, 2007, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") granting asylum, In re Xia Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2009), rev'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 23, 2007), and (2) a July 26, 2010, decision of the BIA that denied her motion to remand, In re Xia Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 26, 2010). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this ease.
As an initial matter, contrary to the Government's contention, we have jurisdiction to review both of the BIA's decisions. In Alibasic v. Mukasey, we held that the Court has jurisdiction to review, as a final order of removal, a BIA decision denying relief from removal and remanding solely for consideration of voluntary departure. 547 F.3d 78, 83-84 (2d Cip. 2008). We did not hold that an alien is required to petition for review of such decisions at the time they are issued rather than wait to petition until the completion of removal proceedings on remand. See id.-, see also INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 313, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (referring to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) as a "zipper clause" that provides for consolidation in one action in the court of appeals of questions of law and fact arising in removal proceedings).
The standards of review for both decisions are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016). Lin applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and later moved to reopen removal proceedings, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her children in the United States purportedly 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 at 156-73, we find no error in the BIA's determination on de novo review that Lin failed to satisfy her burden of establishing an objectively reasonable well founded fear of persecution.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.