Court Opinion

ID: 2651995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-02-03 15:38:13.442289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:36.602426
License: Public Domain

11-3817
         Chi 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 Thurgood Marshall United
 3       States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
 4       on the 3rd day of February, two thousand fourteen.
 5
 6       PRESENT:
 7                JON O. NEWMAN,
 8                DENNIS JACOBS,
 9                PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10                     Circuit Judges.
11       ____________________________________
12
13       JOHN JIN CHEN, AKA ZUN JIN CHEN                              10-4185
14       v. HOLDER,
15       A072 460 750
16       ____________________________________
17
18       QI CHEN v. HOLDER,                                           10-4983
19       A073 674 220
20       ____________________________________
21
22       MEI MEI CHEN v. HOLDER,                                      11-1210
23       A099 589 759
24       ____________________________________
25
26       YONG LIN v. HOLDER                                           11-3224
27       A072 763 849
28       ____________________________________
29       QIU DAN CHI v. HOLDER                                        11-3817
30       A077 050 604
31       ____________________________________
32       JI SHUN ZHENG, AKA QI SHEN JENG,                             11-4858
33       v. HOLDER,
34       A077 977 705
35       ____________________________________
 1   YU BIAO WENG v. HOLDER,                        12-706
 2   A073 646 956
 3   ____________________________________
 4
 5   DIAN SHAN JIANG v. HOLDER                      12-1808
 6   A073 576 384
 7   ____________________________________
 8
 9   YOANG-QING WONG, AKA YONG-QING                 12-2021
10   WANG, AKA YUN SOON KIM v. HOLDER,
11   A070 011 218
12   ____________________________________
13
14   XIAO YAN DONG v. HOLDER,                       12-3141
15   A098 648 027
16   ____________________________________
17
18       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

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

21   are DENIED.

22       Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

23   BIA that: (1) affirmed a decision of an Immigration Judge

24   (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen; (2) denied a motion to

25   reopen in the first instance; or (3) denied a motion to

26   reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen.   The applicable

27   standards of review are well-established.   See Jian Hui Shao

28   v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Ke

29   Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d

30   Cir. 2001); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d

31   Cir. 2006).

                                  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 agency’s determinations that

 7   the petitioners failed to demonstrate either (a) materially

 8   changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely or

 9   number-barred filing of their motions, or (b) their prima

10   facie eligibility for relief.       See id. at 158-72.

11       In John Jin Chen v. Holder, 10-4185 (1), and Dian Shan

12   Jiang v. Holder, 12-1808 (8), we find no error in the BIA’s

13   conclusions that petitioners failed to demonstrate

14   materially changed country conditions with regard to China’s

15   treatment of their religious groups or establish their prima

16   facie eligibility for relief on account of their religious

17   practices.   See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72; see also

18   Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2008).       In

19   Ji Shun Zheng v. Holder, No. 11-4858 (6), and Yu Biao Weng

20   v. Holder, No. 12-706 (7), the BIA did not err in finding

21   that petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie

22   eligibility for relief based on their religious practices

                                     3
 1   because the evidence they submitted did not demonstrate that

 2   Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware

 3   of, their practices.    See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528

 4 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546
5 F.3d at 168.

 6       Finally, in Qi Chen v. Holder, 10-4983 (2), Dian Shan

 7   Jiang v. Holder, 12-1808 (8), and Yoang-Qing Wong v. Holder,

 8   12-2021 (9), the BIA did not err in declining to credit the

 9   petitioners’ unauthenticated, individualized evidence in

10   light of the agency’s underlying adverse credibility

11   determinations.    See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d
12   143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

13       For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

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

15   removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

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

17   these petitions is DISMISSED as moot.    Any pending request

18   for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

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

20   Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

21                                 FOR THE COURT:
22                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24

                                    4