Case Name: XIN YUN SHI v. SESSIONS, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]; Xiu Juan Lu v. Sessions, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]; Yan Yun Liu v. Sessions, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]; Chen Feng Ni, Yu Ming Zhu v. Sessions [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/189
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 9
Docket Number: 12-2776; 12-3505; 12-3672; 14-235
Parties: XIN YUN SHI v. SESSIONS, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Xiu Juan Lu v. Sessions, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Yan Yun Liu v. Sessions, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Chen Feng Ni, Yu Ming Zhu v. Sessions [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/189
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
XIN YUN SHI v. SESSIONS, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Xiu Juan Lu v. Sessions, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Yan Yun Liu v. Sessions, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Chen Feng Ni, Yu Ming Zhu v. Sessions [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/189
12-2776
12-3505
12-3672
14-235
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 3, 2017.
Grace Victoria Calle, Esq., Attorney, Calle & Associates, New York, NY, for Petitioner
Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, OIL, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA that reversed a decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") granting asylum. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v, Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016).
Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, applied for asylum and related relief based on claims that they fear persecution because they have violated China's population control program with the birth of their children in the United States. The BIA recognized that it reviews an IJ's factual findings for clear error, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003,l(d)(3)(l), and conclusions of law de novo, id. § 1003,1(d)(3)(h). In each of the cases covered by this order, the BIA concluded that the IJ had erred in concluding that the petitioner had established an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because of the birth of children in the United States. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the BIA's determination. See 546 F.3d at 158-72.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's denial of Petitioners' religious persecution claim in Chen Feng Ni, Yu Ming Zhu v. Lynch, 14-235. Petitioners did not appeal that ruling to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Grullon v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 107, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2007).
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED, As we have completed our review, any stays of removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions are VACATED, and any pending motions for stays of removal in these petitions are DISMISSED as moot. Any pending requests for oral argument in these petitions are DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
. In three of the cases, Nos. 12-3672, 12-3503, and 14-235, the BIA also found clearly erroneous the IJ's factual finding that the petitioner had a well founded fear of future persecution. Because we uphold the BIA's legal conclusion that the alleged fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable, we express no view as to the BIA's rejection of the IJ's fact-finding.