Case Name: CUIRONG LIN, Chenxi Chen, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]; Shu Ping Weng, Xin Huang, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-27
Citations: 559 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: Nos. 10-2680 (L), 11-1250, 10-4150(L), 11-4391
Parties: CUIRONG LIN, Chenxi Chen, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Shu Ping Weng, Xin Huang, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
CUIRONG LIN, Chenxi Chen, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Shu Ping Weng, Xin Huang, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
Nos. 10-2680 (L), 11-1250, 10-4150(L), 11-4391.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 27, 2014.
Gary J. Yerman, Esq., Yerman & Associates, LLC, New York, N.Y., for Cuirong Lin, Chenxi Chen [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Holder [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that: (1) affirmed decisions of immigration judges ("IJ") denying asylum and related relief; and (2) denied motions to reopen in the first instance. The applicable 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 of China, sought relief from removal based on claims that they fear persecution because they have had more than one child 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 determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate their eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72.
In addition, the BIA did not err in finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief based on the practice of either Falun Gong or a new religion because the evidence they submitted did not demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware of, their practices. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.
For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously 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 petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).