Court Opinion

ID: 804897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-07-23 14:24:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:32.983677
License: Public Domain

10-5154-ag
         Jiang 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 23rd day of July, 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       MING SHENG ZHU v. HOLDER,                              10-4432-ag
15       A079 673 541
16       _______________________________________
17
18       BEN CHEN v. HOLDER,                                    10-4718-ag
19       A072 473 754
20       _______________________________________
21
22       EN CHEN, AKA YIN CHEN v. HOLDER,                       10-4742-ag
23       A077 309 013
24       _______________________________________
25
26       SAI YING CHEN v. HOLDER,                               10-4997-ag
27       A098 775 949
28       _______________________________________

         02272012-11-20
 1
 2   ZU HUA LIU v. HOLDER,                       10-5151-ag
 3   A077 297 009
 4   _______________________________________
 5
 6   NAI YU JIANG v. HOLDER,                     10-5154-ag
 7   A078 745 496
 8   _______________________________________
 9
10   WANG ZHANG, AKA WANG ZHENG v. HOLDER,       11-443-ag
11   A072 455 620
12   _______________________________________
13
14   CHANG LONG UO,
15   AKA CHANG-LONG OU v. HOLDER,                11-464-ag
16   A076 505 684
17   _______________________________________
18
19   WAN PING LIN, YAN QING ZHU v. HOLDER,       11-1638-ag
20   A070 892 381
21   A070 868 369
22   _______________________________________
23
24   QING YOU CHEN v. HOLDER,                    11-1961-ag
25   A073 173 328
26   _______________________________________
27
28           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

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

31   review are DENIED.

32           Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

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

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

35   546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

     02272012-11-20                  2
 1           Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

 2   motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear

 3   persecution because they have had one or more children in

 4   violation of China’s population control program.           For

 5   largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui

 6   Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.

 7   See id. at 158-72.

 8           Although the BIA may err in rejecting family planning

 9   notices, such as those submitted in some of these cases,

10   solely based on a failure to authenticate pursuant to

11   8 C.F.R. § 1287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

12   428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005), it does not abuse its

13   discretion in according diminished weight to notices that

14   have not been authenticated by any means, see Xiao Ji Chen

15   v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir.

16   2006).           Regardless, remand to the BIA for consideration of

17   the family planning notices would be futile because the

18   notices merely referenced the family planning policy’s

19   mandatory sterilization requirement without any indication

20   that such sterilizations are performed by force.           See Shunfu

21   Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding

22   that remand is futile when the Court can confidently

     02272012-11-20                        3
 1   “predict that the agency would reach the same decision

 2   absent the errors that were made” (internal quotation marks

 3   and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at

 4   165, 172.

 5           For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

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

 7   removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

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

 9   these petitions is DISMISSED as moot.      Any pending request

10   for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

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

12   Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

13                                  FOR THE COURT:
14                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16

     02272012-11-20                   4