Court Opinion

ID: 805774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-08-02 14:15:50+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:25.383056
License: Public Domain

11-1015-ag
         Chen 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       XIAO JIE ZHOU v. HOLDER,                               10-1350-ag
15       A093 394 030
16       _______________________________________
17
18       SHAO LIN CHEN v. HOLDER,                               10-2911-ag
19       A099 938 936
20       _______________________________________
21
22       WEN QING YANG v. HOLDER,                               10-3684-ag
23       A099 930 548
24       _______________________________________
25
26       DIANQIN JIANG v. HOLDER,                               10-4919-ag
27       A089 253 646
28       _______________________________________

         04302012-1-10
 1
 2   SHUYING CHEN v. HOLDER,                     11-13-ag
 3   A095 164 157
 4   _______________________________________
 5
 6   WEN QING CHEN v. HOLDER,                    11-1015-ag
 7   A099 928 261
 8   _______________________________________
 9
10   SHU-CHIN LIN v. HOLDER,                     11-1604-ag
11   A073 034 379
12   _______________________________________
13
14   ZOU-QIANG GAO v. HOLDER,                    11-2062-ag
15   A072 460 888
16   _______________________________________
17
18   MING KUI XIAO v. HOLDER,                    11-2303-ag
19   A072 766 265
20   _______________________________________
21
22   FENG ZHI LIN v. HOLDER,                     11-2572-ag
23   A089 254 238
24   _______________________________________
25
26           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

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

29   are DENIED.

30           Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

31   BIA affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”)

32   denying asylum and related relief.     The applicable standards

33   of review are well-established.     See Jian Hui Shao v.

34   Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

     04302012-1-10                   2
 1

 2           Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought

 3   relief from removal based on their claims that they fear

 4   persecution because they have had one or more children in

 5   the United States, which they contend is in violation of

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

 7   reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no

 8   error in the agency’s decisions.     See id. at 158-72.

 9           We also conclude that the agency did not abuse its

10   discretion when, in certain cases, it declined to credit

11   letters from a few individuals who claimed that they had

12   been required to undergo sterilization because (i) the

13   letters were unauthenticated, (ii) Petitioners failed to

14   demonstrate that the circumstances of the authors were

15   similar to their own, and (iii) the agency in other cases

16   has rejected such isolated reports of forced sterilization

17   in light of significant country evidence to the contrary.

18   See, e.g., Mao Hui Dong, No.     A099 934 664 (B.I.A. Feb. 9,

19   2011); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 153, 159-61, 172.

20           For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

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

22   removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

     04302012-1-10                   3
1   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

2   these petitions is DISMISSED as moot.   Any pending request

3   for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

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

5   Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

6                              FOR THE COURT:
7                              Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9

    04302012-1-10                4