Filed: Oct. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 08-2450-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 PA
Summary: 08-2450-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 PAR..
More
08-2450-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 1 st day of October, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________
MING LI v. HOLDER, 1 08-2450-ag
A070 905 365
______________________________
LIANG TAI WANG v. HOLDER, 08-3427-ag
A073 166 614
______________________________
YING HUANG v. BCIS, 08-3740-ag
A077 281 422
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
1
Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically
substituted where necessary.
08022010-1-20
______________________________
______________________________
DIAN GAO v. HOLDER, 08-5965-ag
A074 856 462
______________________________
ZU YI YANG v. HOLDER, 09-0423-ag
A072 765 750
______________________________
FENG JING CHEN v. HOLDER, 09-0450-ag
A077 545 465
______________________________
HE QIANG CHEN, a.k.a. CURTIS 09-0603-ag
MAO CHEN HUNG, v. HOLDER,
A077 318 279
______________________________
XIAO YANG, a.k.a. XIAOWEI 09-0651-ag
YANG, v. HOLDER,
A073 134 267
______________________________
AI HAO YANG v. HOLDER, 09-0653-ag
A072 763 959
______________________________
ZHI MING ZHANG v. HOLDER, 09-0813-ag
A072 372 813
______________________________
YU LAN LI v. HOLDER, 09-0886-ag
A077 293 406
______________________________
NAN SHENG JIANG v. HOLDER, 09-1692-ag
A073 571 330
______________________________
08022010-1-20 -2-
______________________________
ZHU JIAN CHANG, a.k.a. ZU 09-3121-ag
JIAN ZHANG, v. HOLDER,
A072 842 412
______________________________
CUI HUI LIN v. HOLDER, 09-4289-ag
A073 574 229
______________________________
YAN MI LIN v. HOLDER, 09-4427-ag
A095 716 948
______________________________
JIN XIU LIN v. HOLDER, 09-4616-ag
A077 341 016
______________________________
FENG ZHU PAN, a.k.a. 09-4794-ag
FENGZHU PAN, v. HOLDER,
A073 646 042
______________________________
LINCHUN DONG, a.k.a. AMY 09-4900-ag
DONG, v. HOLDER,
A079 067 011
______________________________
JIAN-ZHONG CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-0004-ag
A073 207 842
______________________________
QING RONG ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-0113-ag
A072 434 592
______________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
several Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for
04262010-2-20 -3-
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
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,
448 F.3d 515, 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 coercive population control program. For
largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui
Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d Cir. 2008), we find
no error in the BIA’s decisions. While the petitioners in
Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the
petitioners here, one petitioner is from Guangdong Province 2
and one is from Zhejiang Provinces. 3 Regardless, as with the
2
The petitioner in Zhi Ming Zhang v. Holder, No. 09-0831-ag.
3
The petitioner in Xiao Yang, a.k.a. Xiaowei Yang v. Holder,
No. 09-0651-ag.
08022010-1-20 -4-
evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence they have
submitted related to Guangdong and Zhejiang Provinces either
does not discuss forced sterilizations or references isolated
incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly
situated to the petitioners. See id. at 160-61.
Some of the petitioners 4 argue that the BIA applied an
incorrect burden of proof by requiring them to establish more
than their prima facie eligibility for relief. However, in
those cases, the BIA either explicitly considered the
petitioners’ prima facie eligibility or found instead that
they failed to demonstrate changed country conditions. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104
(1988).
One petitioner 5 contends that the BIA improperly reviewed
de novo the IJ’s factual findings when it adopted and affirmed
her decision. We disagree. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at
162-63.
4
The petitioners in Dian Gao v. Holder, No. 08-5965-ag; Feng
Jing Chen v. Holder, No. 09-0450-ag; He Qiang Chen, a.k.a. Curtis
Mao Chen Hung v. Holder, No. 09-0603-ag; Xiao Yang, a.k.a. Xiaowei
Yang v. Holder, No. 09-0651-ag; Cui Hui Lin v. Holder, No. 09-4289-
ag; Feng Zhu Pan, a.k.a. Fengzhu Pan v. Holder, 09-4794-ag; and
Linchun Dong a.k.a. Amy Dong v. Holder, No. 09-4900-ag.
5
The petitioner in Jian-Zhong Chen v. Holder, No. 10-0004-
ag.
08022010-1-20 -5-
Contrary to the arguments asserted by several
petitioners, 6 we find no error in the BIA’s refusal to credit
unauthenticated evidence in light of an underlying adverse
credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500
F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).
To the extent that two of the petitioners 7 argue that they
were eligible to file successive asylum applications based
solely on their changed personal circumstances, these
arguments 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
argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with
6
The petitioners in Liang Tai Wang v. Holder, No. 08-3427-ag;
Dian Gao v. Holder, No. 08-5965-ag; Zu Yi Yang v. Holder, No. 09-
0423-ag; Feng Jing Chen v. Holder, No. 09-0450-ag; He Qiang Chen,
a.k.a. Curtis Mao Chen Hung v. Holder, No. 09-0603-ag; Xiao Yang,
a.k.a. Xiaowei Yang v. Holder, No. 09-0651-ag; Ai Hao Yang v.
Holder, No. 09-0653-ag; Yu Lan Li v. Holder, No. 09-0886-ag; Nan
Sheng Jiang v. Holder, No. 09-1692-ag; Jin Xiu Lin v. Holder, No.
09-4616-ag; Linchun Dong, a.k.a. Amy Dong, No. 09-4900-ag; and Qing
Rong Zheng v. Holder, No. 10-0113-ag.
7
The petitioners in Ying Huang v. BCIS, No. 08-3740, and Ai
Hao Yang v. Holder, No. 09-0653-ag.
08022010-1-20 -6-
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
08022010-1-20 -7-
