Filed: Feb. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-2678-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Harbeck, IJ A094 041 894 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVISED 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 (W
Summary: 09-2678-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Harbeck, IJ A094 041 894 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVISED 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 (WI..
More
09-2678-ag
Wang v. Holder
BIA
Harbeck, IJ
A094 041 894
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
REVISED 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 4th day of February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 WEI HUA WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2678-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
27 Director; William C. Minick,
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Wei Hua Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 9, 2009, order of
7 the BIA affirming immigration judge (“IJ”) Dorothy Harbeck’s
8 July 17, 2007, denial of her application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Hua Wang, No. A094 041
11 894 (B.I.A. June 9, 2009), aff’g No. A094 041 894 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City July 17, 2007). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 of this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decision. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514
17 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of
18 review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); see
19 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.
20 2009).
21 The BIA did not err in finding that Wang failed to
22 establish an objectively reasonable fear of persecution in
23 China on account of the birth of her two U.S. citizen
2
1 children. Wang’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision
2 in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 Contrary to Wang’s contention, the BIA did not err in
4 finding that letters she submitted from her sister and
5 sister-in-law were not material to her case because they did
6 not detail the forced sterilizations of similarly situated
7 individuals, i.e., Chinese nationals returning to China with
8 U.S. citizen children. See
id. at 160-61, 170-71. The BIA
9 also did not err by summarily considering the evidence in
10 the record or the documents at issue in Jian Hui Shao. See
11
id. at 169; see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
437 F.3d 270,
12 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider
13 evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it]
14 is asked to consider time and again[,] . . . it may do so in
15 summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it
16 has abused its discretion”).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
4
