Court Opinion

ID: 805791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-08-02 14:47:04+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:33.023456
License: Public Domain

10-4129-ag
         Dong v. Holder

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                    SUMMARY ORDER
     RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
     FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
     APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
     IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
     ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
     ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1            At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2       for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
 3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
 4       New York, on the 2nd day of August, two thousand twelve.
 5
 6       PRESENT:
 7                DENNIS JACOBS,
 8                     Chief Judge,
 9                JON O. NEWMAN,
10                PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11                     Circuit Judges.
12       ____________________________________
13
14       MEI LING LI v. HOLDER,                                       10-55-ag
15       A077 353 526
16       ____________________________________
17
18       XIN CHEN v. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE,
19       HOLDER,                                                      10-2613-ag
20       A073 536 028
21       ____________________________________
22
23       TIAN YAO DONG v. HOLDER,                                     10-4129-ag
24       A095 381 956
25       ____________________________________
26
27       JIAN ZHEN CHEN v. HOLDER,                                    10-4180-ag
28       A072 785 517
29       ____________________________________

         02272012-21-30
 1
 2   DAN DAN WU v. HOLDER,                            11-321-ag
 3   A079 774 668
 4   ____________________________________
 5
 6   MENG ZHAO WANG v. HOLDER,                        11-557-ag
 7   A073 179 839
 8   ____________________________________
 9
10   XIAN XIANG LIN v. HOLDER,                        11-1363-ag
11   A073 599 598
12   ____________________________________
13
14   LI YIN CHEN v. HOLDER,                           11-1791-ag
15   A078 725 231
16   ____________________________________
17
18   LI YING CHEN v. HOLDER,
19   U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE                            11-2080-ag
20   A078 412 192
21   ____________________________________
22
23   ZHEN YIN GUO v. HOLDER,                          11-2280-ag
24   A070 908 560
25   ____________________________________
26
27           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

28   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby

29   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review

30   are DENIED.

31           Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

32   BIA either denying a motion to reopen or affirming an

33   Immigration Judge’s denial of a motion to reopen.     The

34   applicable standards of review are well-established.        See

35   Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d

36   Cir. 2008).
     02272012-21-30                  2
 1           Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

 2   motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution

 3   because they have had one or more children in violation of

 4   China’s population control program.     For largely the same

 5   reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d

 6   138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.     See id. at

 7   158-72.

 8           In Tian Yao Dong v. Holder, No. 10-4129-ag and in Zhen

 9   Yin Guo v. Holder, No. 11-2280-ag, the BIA did not abuse its

10   discretion in declining to credit the petitioners’

11   unauthenticated evidence regarding the family planning

12   policy in light of the agency’s underlying adverse

13   credibility determinations.     See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,

14   500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

15           Petitioners’ motions to reopen were also based on their

16   claims that they fear persecution in China on account of

17   their religious practices.     The BIA did not err in finding

18   that petitioners failed to demonstrate either material

19   changed country conditions or their prima facie eligibility

20   for relief on this basis.     See 8 U.S.C.

21   § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,

22   528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94,

23   104-05 (1988).
     02272012-21-30                  3
1            For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

2    are DENIED.      As we have completed our review, any stay of

3    removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

4    is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

5    these petitions is DISMISSED as moot.      Any pending request

6    for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

7    with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and

8    Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

 9                                  FOR THE COURT:
10                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13

     02272012-21-30                   4