Court Opinion

ID: 176418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-10-02 00:00:32+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:38.612898
License: Public Domain

08-2450-ag
Li 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 1 st day of October, two thousand ten.

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

MING LI v. HOLDER, 1                                               08-2450-ag
A070 905 365
______________________________

LIANG TAI WANG v. HOLDER,                                          08-3427-ag
A073 166 614
______________________________

YING HUANG v. BCIS,                                                08-3740-ag
A077 281 422

      Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
         1

Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically
substituted where necessary.
08022010-1-20
______________________________
______________________________

DIAN GAO v. HOLDER,               08-5965-ag
A074 856 462
______________________________

ZU YI YANG v. HOLDER,             09-0423-ag
A072 765 750
______________________________

FENG JING CHEN v. HOLDER,         09-0450-ag
A077 545 465
______________________________

HE QIANG CHEN, a.k.a. CURTIS      09-0603-ag
MAO CHEN HUNG, v. HOLDER,
A077 318 279
______________________________

XIAO YANG, a.k.a. XIAOWEI         09-0651-ag
YANG, v. HOLDER,
A073 134 267
______________________________

AI HAO YANG v. HOLDER,            09-0653-ag
A072 763 959
______________________________

ZHI MING ZHANG v. HOLDER,         09-0813-ag
A072 372 813
______________________________

YU LAN LI v. HOLDER,              09-0886-ag
A077 293 406
______________________________

NAN SHENG JIANG v. HOLDER,        09-1692-ag
A073 571 330
______________________________

08022010-1-20               -2-
______________________________

ZHU JIAN CHANG, a.k.a. ZU                            09-3121-ag
JIAN ZHANG, v. HOLDER,
A072 842 412
______________________________

CUI HUI LIN v. HOLDER,                               09-4289-ag
A073 574 229
______________________________

YAN MI LIN v. HOLDER,                                09-4427-ag
A095 716 948
______________________________

JIN XIU LIN v. HOLDER,                               09-4616-ag
A077 341 016
______________________________

FENG ZHU PAN, a.k.a.                                 09-4794-ag
FENGZHU PAN, v. HOLDER,
A073 646 042
______________________________

LINCHUN DONG, a.k.a. AMY                             09-4900-ag
DONG, v. HOLDER,
A079 067 011
______________________________

JIAN-ZHONG CHEN v. HOLDER,                           10-0004-ag
A073 207 842
______________________________

QING RONG ZHENG v. HOLDER,                           10-0113-ag
A072 434 592
______________________________

        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

04262010-2-20                  -3-
review are DENIED.

        Each     of    these    petitions    challenges    a    decision     of    an

immigration judge (“IJ”) or the BIA denying a motion to reopen

based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed

country conditions sufficient to avoid the applicable time and

numerical limits or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima

facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought.                          See 8

C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c), 1003.23(b).                We review the denial of a

motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.                      Ali v. Gonzales,

448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006).

        Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

motions         to    reopen    based   on   their   claim     that   they    fear

persecution           because    they   have   one    or   more    children        in

violation of China’s coercive population control program.                         For

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

Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d Cir. 2008), we find

no error in the BIA’s decisions.                 While the petitioners in

Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the

petitioners here, one petitioner is from Guangdong Province 2

and one is from Zhejiang Provinces. 3                Regardless, as with the

        2
            The petitioner in Zhi Ming Zhang v. Holder, No. 09-0831-ag.
        3
      The petitioner in Xiao Yang, a.k.a. Xiaowei Yang v. Holder,
No. 09-0651-ag.

08022010-1-20                            -4-
evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence they have

submitted related to Guangdong and Zhejiang Provinces either

does not discuss forced sterilizations or references isolated

incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly

situated to the petitioners.              See id. at 160-61.

        Some of the petitioners 4 argue that the BIA applied an

incorrect burden of proof by requiring them to establish more

than their prima facie eligibility for relief.                 However, in

those           cases,   the   BIA   either   explicitly   considered    the

petitioners’ prima facie eligibility or found instead that

they failed to demonstrate changed country conditions.                  See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104

(1988).

        One petitioner 5 contends that the BIA improperly reviewed

de novo the IJ’s factual findings when it adopted and affirmed

her decision.            We disagree. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at

162-63.

        4
      The petitioners in Dian Gao v. Holder, No. 08-5965-ag; Feng
Jing Chen v. Holder, No. 09-0450-ag; He Qiang Chen, a.k.a. Curtis
Mao Chen Hung v. Holder, No. 09-0603-ag; Xiao Yang, a.k.a. Xiaowei
Yang v. Holder, No. 09-0651-ag; Cui Hui Lin v. Holder, No. 09-4289-
ag; Feng Zhu Pan, a.k.a. Fengzhu Pan v. Holder, 09-4794-ag; and
Linchun Dong a.k.a. Amy Dong v. Holder, No. 09-4900-ag.
        5
            The petitioner in Jian-Zhong Chen v. Holder, No. 10-0004-
ag.

08022010-1-20                           -5-
        Contrary             to   the   arguments           asserted       by     several

petitioners, 6 we find no error in the BIA’s refusal to credit

unauthenticated evidence in light of an underlying adverse

credibility determination.                  See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500

F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

        To the extent that two of the petitioners 7 argue that they

were eligible to file successive asylum applications based

solely          on     their      changed        personal    circumstances,         these

arguments            are   foreclosed       by    our    decision     in   Yuen   Jin   v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).

        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

        6
      The petitioners in Liang Tai Wang v. Holder, No. 08-3427-ag;
Dian Gao v. Holder, No. 08-5965-ag; Zu Yi Yang v. Holder, No. 09-
0423-ag; Feng Jing Chen v. Holder, No. 09-0450-ag; He Qiang Chen,
a.k.a. Curtis Mao Chen Hung v. Holder, No. 09-0603-ag; Xiao Yang,
a.k.a. Xiaowei Yang v. Holder, No. 09-0651-ag; Ai Hao Yang v.
Holder, No. 09-0653-ag; Yu Lan Li v. Holder, No. 09-0886-ag; Nan
Sheng Jiang v. Holder, No. 09-1692-ag; Jin Xiu Lin v. Holder, No.
09-4616-ag; Linchun Dong, a.k.a. Amy Dong, No. 09-4900-ag; and Qing
Rong Zheng v. Holder, No. 10-0113-ag.
        7
      The petitioners in Ying Huang v. BCIS, No. 08-3740, and Ai
Hao Yang v. Holder, No. 09-0653-ag.

08022010-1-20                                 -6-
Federal         Rule   of   Appellate   Procedure   34(a)(2),   and   Second

Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

                                        FOR THE COURT:
                                        Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

08022010-1-20                           -7-