Filed: Oct. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 07-5414-ag Wang v. Holder BIA A072 217 556 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 “SU
Summary: 07-5414-ag Wang v. Holder BIA A072 217 556 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 “SUM..
More
07-5414-ag
Wang v. Holder
BIA
A072 217 556
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 27th day of October, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 ZENG QIN WANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 07-5414-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,*
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
08232010-25
1 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
2 York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
5 Attorney General; Francis W. Fraser,
6 Senior Litigation Counsel; W. Daniel
7 Shieh, Trial Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, United
9 States Department of Justice,
10 Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Zeng Qin Wang, a native and citizen of China, seeks
17 review of a November 7, 2007, BIA order denying his motion
18 to reopen. In re Zeng Qin Wang, No. A072 217 556 (B.I.A.
19 Nov. 7, 2007). Wang’s motion to reopen was based on his
20 claim that he fears persecution on account of both the birth
21 of his U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family
22 planning policy and his Catholic faith. For largely the
23 same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v.
24 Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error
25 in the BIA’s decision to the extent it addressed his family
26 planning claim. See
id. at 168-72. Additionally, in his
27 brief, Wang does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive
28 determination that he failed to demonstrate a change in the
29 Chinese government’s treatment of Catholics sufficient to
08232010-25 2
1 excuse the untimely filing of his motion to reopen. See 8
2 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
3 Moreover, contrary to Wang’s argument, the BIA did not
4 err in denying his motion to reopen insofar as it was based
5 on the fact that his wife’s motion to reopen had been
6 granted because he did not demonstrate that his wife
7 ultimately was granted any form of relief. Cf. Yan Fang
8 Zhang v. Gonzales,
452 F.3d 167, 173-74 (2d Cir. 2006)
9 (recognizing that issuing inconsistent decisions regarding
10 the ultimate eligibility for relief of a husband and wife
11 presenting identical claims implicates the fundamental
12 principle of justice that “similarly situated individuals be
13 treated similarly”).
14 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
08232010-25 3