Court Opinion

ID: 806308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-08-09 14:33:13+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:33:21.129692
License: Public Domain

11-2506-ag
         Chan 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 9th 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       MIAO CHEN, AKA MAO CHEN V. HOLDER                            11-58-ag
15       A077 293 499
16       ____________________________________
17
18       JAN SHING LIN, AKA JIAN-XIN LIN,
19       LEE CHING CHEN, AKA LI-QIN CHEN
20       v. HOLDER,                                                   11-226-ag
21       A070 115 803
22       A070 115 804
23       ____________________________________
24
25       GUO MOU LI v. HOLDER,                                        11-363-ag
26       A070 901 706
27       ____________________________________
28
29

         04302012-11-22
 1   CHUNMEI CHEN v. HOLDER,                          11-1230-ag
 2   A096 266 559
 3   ____________________________________
 4
 5   DI DI QIU v. HOLDER,                             11-1358-ag
 6   A073 604 510
 7   ____________________________________
 8
 9   LU QIANG LIN v. HOLDER,                          11-1449-ag
10   A073 189 038
11   ____________________________________
12
13   CAI YUN WU v. HOLDER,                            11-1557-ag
14   A200 115 826
15   ____________________________________
16
17   LING LIU DONG, AKA LIN LU DONG v.                11-2207-ag
18   HOLDER,
19   A078 299 082
20   ____________________________________
21
22   MIN TONG ZHENG v. HOLDER,                        11-2251-ag
23   A078 227 081
24   ____________________________________
25
26   MING DUAN CHAN, AKA MING DUAN ZHAN,              11-2506-ag
27   AKA MING DUAN ZHANG v. HOLDER,
28   A077 957 616
29   ____________________________________
30
31   CHI-HSUN CHEN, AKA QI XUN CHEN                   11-2558-ag
32   v. HOLDER,
33   A076 810 625
34   ____________________________________
35
36   YING XUE LIN v. HOLDER,                          11-3063-ag
37   A077 281 071
38   ____________________________________
39
40           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

     04302012-11-22                  2
 1   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review

 2   are DENIED.

 3           Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

 4   BIA denying a motion to reopen.           The applicable standards of

 5   review are well-established.            See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

 6   546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

 7           Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

 8   motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear

 9   persecution because they have had one or more children in

10   the United States in violation of China’s population control

11   program.         All of the petitioners argued that changed country

12   conditions regarding the enforcement of China’s population

13   control population should excuse the untimely filing of

14   their motions.         See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R.

15   § 1003.2(c).

16           For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in

17   Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s

18   decisions.         See id. at 158-72.     Moreover, the BIA did not

19   err in declining to credit the petitioners’ individualized

20   and unauthenticated evidence in light of the agency’s

21   underlying adverse credibility determinations.            See Qin Wen

22   Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

     04302012-11-22                      3
 1           In Miao Chen v. Holder, No. 11-58-ag, the BIA did not

 2   err in finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate

 3   material changed country conditions regarding the treatment

 4   of Christians in China sufficient to excuse the untimely

 5   filing of his motion.      See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

 6   In Min Tong Zheng v. Holder, No. 11-2251-ag, the BIA did not

 7   err in finding that petitioner’s medical condition did not

 8   constitute a valid exception to the time limitation

 9   applicable to his motion to reopen.      See 8 U.S.C.

10   § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

11           For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

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

13   removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

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

15   these petitions is DISMISSED as moot.      Any pending request

16   for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

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

18   Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

19                                  FOR THE COURT:
20                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21

     04302012-11-22                   4