Filed: Aug. 25, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 06-5148-ag Zheng v. BIA 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
Summary: 06-5148-ag Zheng v. BIA 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 PAR..
More
06-5148-ag
Zheng v. BIA
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 25 th day of August, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________
YING ZHENG v. BIA, 06-5148-ag
A077 023 905
____________________________
QUI HANG QUI v. HOLDER, 1 07-3877-ag
A077 353 466
____________________________
HUI JIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 07-4659-ag
A078 016 089
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is automatically substituted as respondent
where necessary.
041210-1-20
____________________________
___________________________
JIN-FANG CHEN v. HOLDER, 07-4878-ag
A072 556 694
___________________________
YONG JIE YANG v. HOLDER, 07-5434-ag
A070 650 836
___________________________
CHUN YING CHEN v. HOLDER, 07-5555-ag
A070 909 888, A029 821 928
___________________________
XIU MIN WANG v. HOLDER, 07-5659-ag
A076 628 043
___________________________
MINJ LIANG v. HOLDER, 08-0030-ag
A077 341 361
___________________________
AI LING ZHANG v. HOLDER, 08-0107-ag
A095 918 591
___________________________
LI FANG CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-0413-ag
A095 306 350
___________________________
REN XIONG ZHENG v. HOLDER, 08-0595-ag
A073 617 998
___________________________
SU ZHONG CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-0684-ag
A073 623 017
___________________________
YUN CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-0872-ag
A073 776 130
___________________________
JIN YUN QIU v. HOLDER, 08-1166-ag
A098 478 591
-2-
___________________________
___________________________
JIAN JIN SHI v. HOLDER, 08-1411-ag
A076 515 199
___________________________
JIN XIU ZOU v. HOLDER, 08-1435-ag
A078 289 453
___________________________
YAN RONG LIU v. HOLDER, 08-1633-ag
A079 453 133
___________________________
QISUNG LI v. HOLDER, 08-1698-ag
A079 101 960
___________________________
LI JUAN WANG v. HOLDER, 08-2027-ag
A076 506 562
___________________________
GUO MING YE v. HOLDER, 08-4788-ag
A097 385 451
___________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that these petitions for
review are DENIED.
Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA
denying a motion to reopen based on either the movant’s
failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient
to avoid the time and numerical limits applicable to such
041210-1-20 -3-
motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for the underlying relief sought. 2 See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s
admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v.
Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v.
Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)).
Petitioners, all citizens of China, filed motions to
reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because
they had one or more children in the United States. For
largely the same reasons as 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 decisions. 3 See
id. at 168-72. Any
arguments that the petitioners are eligible to file a
successive asylum application based on changed personal
2
Although the BIA erred in Yong Jie Yang v. Holder, 07-5434-ag, by
requiring petitioner to demonstrate changed country conditions despite
the timely filing of his motion to reopen, we decline to remand because
the BIA reasonably found, in the alternative, that petitioner failed to
demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for relief. See Xiao Ji Chen v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 (2d Cir. 2006)(holding that
remand is not required when “it is clear that the agency would adhere to
its prior decision in the absence of error”); see also INS v. Abudu,
485
U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (holding that a movant’s failure to establish his
prima facie eligibility for relief is a proper ground on which the agency
may deny a motion to reopen).
3
We also find no error in the BIA’s decision in Jian Jin Shi v.
Holder, 08-1411-ag, declining to credit petitioner’s unauthenticated
evidence in light of the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See
Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).
041210-1-20 -4-
circumstances are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v.
Mukasey,
538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). We lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination declining to
reopen proceedings sua sponte. See
Ali, 448 F.3d at 518.
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
041210-1-20 -5-
