Case Name: MEI YING ZHENG, Petitioner, 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: 2012-08-02
Citations: 473 F. App'x 99
Docket Number: No. 07-4454-ag
Parties: MEI YING ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
MEI YING ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-4454-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 2, 2012.
Scott E. Bratton, Margaret Wong & Associates Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Michelle Gordon Latour, Assistant Director; Nairi M. Simonian, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Liti gation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON 0. NEWMAN, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler as respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Mei Ying Zheng, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a September 18, 2007, BIA decision denying her motion to reopen. In re Mei Ying Zheng, No. [ AXXXXXXXXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 18, 2007). 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).
Zheng's motion to reopen was based on her claim that she fears persecution on account of the birth of her U.S. citizen children 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 BIA's denial of Zheng's motion to reopen. See id. at 158-72.
To the extent that Zheng argues that she was eligible to file a successive asylum application based solely on her changed personal circumstances, her argument is foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.2008).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).