Filed: Aug. 31, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 07-4359-ag Wang 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: 07-4359-ag Wang 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
07-4359-ag
Wang 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 31 st day of August, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________
HU XIAO WANG v. HOLDER, 1 07-4359-ag
A077 309 639
_______________________________
YING LIN v. HOLDER, 08-0323-ag
A077 977 210
_______________________________
PING PENG LAN v. HOLDER, 08-0843-ag
A077 308 711
_______________________________
LI YU LI v. HOLDER, 08-1876-ag
A072 783 599
_______________________________
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted as respondent
in these cases.
051710-1-7
_______________________________
MIN LIM v. HOLDER, 08-4144-ag
A077 998 551
_______________________________
FU CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-4461-ag
A076 506 652
_______________________________
QIONGCHAO LIN v. HOLDER, 08-5597-ag
A095 856 086
_______________________________
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 2 based on either the movant’s
failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient
to avoid the time and numerical limits applicable to such
motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c). The applicable standard of review is well-
established. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.
2
The petitioner in Qiongchao Lin v. Holder, 08-5597-ag, also challenges the
agency’s underlying denial of her application for relief. We are without
jurisdiction to consider that challenge. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also
Malvoisin v. INS, 268 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir. 2001); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice,
265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).
051710-1-7 -2-
2006).
The motions to reopen at issue in these petitions were
each based primarily on the birth of one or more children to
the Chinese citizen petitioners. 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
decisions. See
id. at 168-72. Moreover, in light of the
agency’s underlying adverse credibility determinations in
these cases, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions declining
to credit any unauthenticated evidence in the records and we
find that it would be futile to remand for the BIA to review
any such evidence that it did not explicitly consider. See
Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007)
(citing Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007));
Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d
Cir. 2007).
Some of the petitioners argue that the BIA failed to give
sufficient consideration or importance to the unsworn
statement of Jin Fu Chen, who alleged that he suffered
forcible sterilization after his return to China based on the
two children born to his wife in Japan. A prior panel of this
Court has remanded a petition making a similar claim so that
Jin Fu Chen’s statement (which was submitted to the BIA after
051710-1-7 -3-
a remand) could be considered by the IJ. See Zheng v. Holder,
No. 07-3970-ag (2d Cir. Jan. 15, 2010). Since the remand in
Zheng, the BIA has considered the Jin Fu Chen statement in
numerous cases and has repeatedly concluded that it neither
demonstrates material changed country conditions nor supports
a well-founded fear of persecution. See, e.g., In re Ai Bin
Chen, No. A078 727 599 (B.I.A. 2009); Mei Feng Weng, No. A077
322 259 (B.I.A. 2009). Accordingly, it is clear that further
consideration of the statement in cases in which the IJ or the
BIA failed to consider it would not change the result. See
Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2008). We
cannot say, furthermore, that the agency’s conclusion
concerning the probative force of the statement involved any
error of law.
Any arguments that the petitioners are eligible to file
successive asylum applications based on changed personal
circumstances are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).
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
051010-1-7
7 -4-
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
051710-1-7 -5-
