Court Opinion

ID: 151790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-07-29 14:08:50+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:25.617170
License: Public Domain

07-4832-ag
Zhou 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.

     At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 29 th day of July, two thousand ten.

PRESENT:
         DENNIS JACOBS,
              Chief Judge,
         JON O. NEWMAN,
         PIERRE N. LEVAL,
              Circuit Judges.
__________________________________

XIU YING ZHOU v. HOLDER, 1                                         07-4832-ag
A077 297 699
__________________________________

YUE E. LIN v. HOLDER,                                              07-5470-ag
A098 480 429
__________________________________

YAN LIN AND YONG ZHI ZHU
v. HOLDER,                                                         08-0039-ag
A098 485 352
A098 485 353
__________________________________

         1
      Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted where
necessary.

03292010-3-26
__________________________________

XIAO YUN LIU v. HOLDER,              08-0249-ag
A099 074 453
__________________________________

JIAN FEI LIN, LONG ZHANG
v. HOLDER,                           08-0408-ag
A099 074 464
A099 074 465
__________________________________

SU ZHEN ZHENG v. HOLDER,             08-0517-ag
A073 382 417
__________________________________

JUAN XIA CHEN v. HOLDER,             08-1732-ag
A094 813 611
__________________________________

RUIYU WANG v. HOLDER,                08-1893-ag
A096 263 970
__________________________________

YI MEI ZHENG, DA ZHONG
ZHENG v. HOLDER,                     08-1981-ag
A099 559 727
A099 559 728
__________________________________

YING CHEN v. HOLDER,                 08-2448-ag
A095 459 835
__________________________________

YEN YUN CHEN v. HOLDER,              08-2499-ag
A072 971 187
__________________________________

SAI QIN WENG v. HOLDER,              08-2784-ag
A098 365 237
__________________________________

03292010-3-26               -2-
__________________________________

ZHONG YUE DAI v. HOLDER,             08-3122-ag
A070 703 020
__________________________________

XI YUE ZOU v. HOLDER,                08-3139-ag
A098 580 278
__________________________________

QIU YUN SHI, MIAN YANG
v. HOLDER,                           08-3496-ag
A099 079 002
A099 079 003
__________________________________

XIAO BIN CHEN, JIN XIU
LIU v. HOLDER,                       08-4001-ag
A072 484 724
A076 217 327
__________________________________

LING QIN HUANG v. HOLDER,            08-4623-ag
A078 527 659
__________________________________

RUIE LIN v. HOLDER,                  08-6179-ag
A094 824 980
__________________________________

YAN CHEN v. HOLDER,                  09-0226-ag
A078 852 678
__________________________________

BIN CHEN AKA MEIQIN
CHEN v. HOLDER,                      09-0843-ag
A076 627 827
__________________________________

QIAO QING JIN v. HOLDER,             09-1148-ag
A099 423 335
__________________________________

YU FANG LIN v. HOLDER,               09-1311-ag

03292010-3-26               -3-
A073 626 193
__________________________________
__________________________________

TIAN XIANG ZHENG
v. HOLDER,                                                   09-1982-ag
A094 046 347
__________________________________

JING BING LIN v. HOLDER,                                     09-2180-ag
A072 938 074
__________________________________

        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for

review are DENIED.

        Each    of   these   petitioners,    all   Chinese    citizens,

challenges a decision of the BIA denying their applications

for relief based on the birth of one or more children in the

United States.        For largely the same reasons this Court set

forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.

2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying each

application. 2       See id. at 168-72.     Contrary to the arguments

        2
      To the extent some of the petitioners asserted that they were
entitled to relief based on their alleged illegal departure from China,
we find no error in the agency’s denial of those claims. See Mu Xiang
Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2005).
Additionally, we find that the agency did not err in denying Yan Chen’s
motion for a continuance in docket number 09-0226-ag, because the BIA
decision that she cited did not represent a change in law. See Morgan
v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551-52 (2d Cir. 2006). We decline to review
petitioner’s unexhausted argument, in Xiao Yun Liu v. Holder, Docket No.
08-0249-ag, that we should remand the proceedings to the BIA because the
IJ’s decision was omitted from the record before the BIA. See Lin Zhong
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1, 122 (2d Cir. 2007).

03292010-3-26                      -4-
of    several        of    the    petitioners,      the    BIA   does    not    conduct

impermissible de novo review in determining that evidence

fails to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of forced

sterilization.             See id. at 162-63; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d)(3).

        For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are

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

that      the    Court         previously    granted      in   these    petitions    is

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

petitions is DISMISSED as moot.                    Any pending request for oral

argument        in     these     petitions    is    DENIED     in   accordance     with

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

Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

                                            FOR THE COURT:
                                            Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

03292010-3-26                                -5-