Filed: Jul. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 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
Summary: 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 P..
More
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-
