07-4083-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 26th day of October, two thousand ten.

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

QIU XIA LI v. HOLDER, 1                                            07-4083-ag
A077 293 487
_____________________________

AI YUE YANG v. HOLDER,                                             07-4385-ag
A077 121 754
_____________________________

SHI YONG LIN, QING LIN                                             07-5410-ag
v. HOLDER,
A073 181 133
A076 120 146
_____________________________



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

Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted
where necessary.
05242010-1-20
_____________________________

CHUN LIN LU v. HOLDER,            08-0374-ag
A073 169 271
_____________________________

FEI XUE CHENG v. HOLDER,          08-0730-ag
A075 841 743
_____________________________

XIA JUAN SUN v. HOLDER,           08-0901-ag
A077 297 075
_____________________________

SHAO CHENG HE v. HOLDER,          08-0915-ag
A077 641 801
_____________________________

YI XIONG ZHOU v. HOLDER,          08-1528-ag
A072 486 769
_____________________________

YAN QIN CHEN v. HOLDER,           08-1702-ag
A077 309 082
_____________________________

ZHIHUA OU v. HOLDER,              08-1754-ag
A074 153 659
_____________________________

LING ZHI LI v. HOLDER,            08-2012-ag
A077 293 676
_____________________________

RUI XIN LIN v. HOLDER,            08-2195-ag
A029 793 718
_____________________________

GUIYING CHEN v. HOLDER,           08-2258-ag
A078 848 872
_____________________________



05242010-1-20               -2-
_____________________________

YAO XIU ZHENG v. HOLDER,                             08-2435-ag
A073 638 337
_____________________________

JIAN FENG LIN v. HOLDER,                             08-3775-ag
A073 626 247
_____________________________

BAO HUA WANG, AKA AKIKO                              08-3808-ag
KURAHASHI v. HOLDER,
A073 874 040
_____________________________

XIA CHEN v. HOLDER,                                  08-6156-ag
A070 936 195
_____________________________

CHANGXU JIANG v. HOLDER,                             09-1389-ag
A078 711 995
_____________________________

HAI OU SUN v. HOLDER,                                09-3564-ag
A071 496 801
_____________________________

        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

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

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


05242010-1-20                  -3-
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,

, 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 population control program.                   For largely

the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v.

Mukasey, 

, 168-72 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error

in the BIA’s decisions.

        Some of the petitioners2 argue that they were eligible to

file a successive asylum application based solely on their

changed personal circumstances.               That argument is foreclosed

by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 

, 156,

158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). Other petitioners3 challenge the BIA’s

refusal to credit their unauthenticated evidence in light of



        2
      The petitioners in Qiu Xia Li v. Holder, No. 07-4083-ag; Shi
Yong Lin, Qing Lin v. Holder, No. 07-5410-ag; Xia Juan Sun v.
Holder, No. 08-0901-ag; and Zhihua Ou v. Holder, No. 08-1754-ag.
        3
      The petitioners in Ai Yue Yang v. Holder, No. 07-4385-ag;
Ling Zhi Li v. Holder, No. 08-2012-ag; Xia Chen v. Holder, No. 08-
6156-ag; and Hai Ou Sun v. Holder, No. 09-3564-ag.

05242010-1-20                           -4-
an      immigration          judge’s     underlying       adverse     credibility

determination.              Again, applicable precedent is fatal to that

argument. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 

, 146-47

(2d Cir. 2007) (relying on the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus

in omnibus to conclude that the agency may decline to credit
documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an
alien           who   was    found     not    credible     in   the   underlying

proceeding).
        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




05242010-1-20                                -5-