Filed: Aug. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-2280-ag Guo 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
Summary: 11-2280-ag Guo 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 PA..
More
11-2280-ag
Guo 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 2nd day of August, 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 MEI LING LI v. HOLDER, 10-55-ag
15 A077 353 526
16 ____________________________________
17
18 XIN CHEN v. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE,
19 HOLDER, 10-2613-ag
20 A073 536 028
21 ____________________________________
22
23 TIAN YAO DONG v. HOLDER, 10-4129-ag
24 A095 381 956
25 ____________________________________
26
27 JIAN ZHEN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4180-ag
28 A072 785 517
29 ____________________________________
02272012-21-30
1
2 DAN DAN WU v. HOLDER, 11-321-ag
3 A079 774 668
4 ____________________________________
5
6 MENG ZHAO WANG v. HOLDER, 11-557-ag
7 A073 179 839
8 ____________________________________
9
10 XIAN XIANG LIN v. HOLDER, 11-1363-ag
11 A073 599 598
12 ____________________________________
13
14 LI YIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1791-ag
15 A078 725 231
16 ____________________________________
17
18 LI YING CHEN v. HOLDER,
19 U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE 11-2080-ag
20 A078 412 192
21 ____________________________________
22
23 ZHEN YIN GUO v. HOLDER, 11-2280-ag
24 A070 908 560
25 ____________________________________
26
27 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
28 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
29 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
30 are DENIED.
31 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
32 BIA either denying a motion to reopen or affirming an
33 Immigration Judge’s denial of a motion to reopen. The
34 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
35 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d
36 Cir. 2008).
02272012-21-30 2
1 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
2 motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution
3 because they have had one or more children in violation of
4 China’s population control program. For largely the same
5 reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d
6 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. See id. at
7 158-72.
8 In Tian Yao Dong v. Holder, No. 10-4129-ag and in Zhen
9 Yin Guo v. Holder, No. 11-2280-ag, the BIA did not abuse its
10 discretion in declining to credit the petitioners’
11 unauthenticated evidence regarding the family planning
12 policy in light of the agency’s underlying adverse
13 credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
14
500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).
15 Petitioners’ motions to reopen were also based on their
16 claims that they fear persecution in China on account of
17 their religious practices. The BIA did not err in finding
18 that petitioners failed to demonstrate either material
19 changed country conditions or their prima facie eligibility
20 for relief on this basis. See 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
22
528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); INS v. Abudu,
485 U.S. 94,
23 104-05 (1988).
02272012-21-30 3
1 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
2 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request
6 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
7 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
8 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13
02272012-21-30 4
