Filed: Aug. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 10-3812 (L) Qu 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: 10-3812 (L) Qu 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
10-3812 (L)
Qu 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 9th day of August, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SAI YUN PAN v. HOLDER, 10-1768 (L)
A075 707 183 11-117 (Con)
_____________________________________
YUE JU LIU, PEI YU ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-1880 (L)
A088 778 532 11-318 (Con)
A088 778 533
_____________________________________
YE QING OU v. HOLDER, 10-2913 (L)
A078 222 196 11-454 (Con)
_____________________________________
MAO HUI DONG v. HOLDER, 10-3085 (L)
A099 934 664 11-862 (Con)
05212012-1-10
_____________________________________
RONG RONG QU v. HOLDER, 10-3812 (L)
A093 389 925 11-3622 (Con)
_____________________________________
PIN QING DONG v. HOLDER, 10-4319
A089 255 682
_____________________________________
BI YAN HUANG, SONG BIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-581
A099 683 828
A099 683 829
_____________________________________
CUI LING CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1194
A095 846 277
_____________________________________
YUE XIA XIA v. HOLDER, 11-1966
A088 533 378
_____________________________________
YAN LI v. HOLDER, 11-2015
A078 723 486
_____________________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
are DENIED.
Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
BIA that: (1) affirmed a decision of an immigration judge
(“IJ”) denying asylum and related relief; and (2) denied in
the first instance a motion to remand and/or reopen. The
applicable standards of review are well-established. See
05212012-1-10 2
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d
Cir. 2008).
Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought
relief from removal based on claims that they fear
persecution because they have had one or more children in
the United States, which they contend is in violation of
China’s population control program. For largely the same
reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao,
546 F.3d
138, we find no error in the agency’s decisions. See
id. at
158-72.
Although the petitioner in Rong Rong Qu v. Holder, Nos.
10-3812 (L), 11-3622 (Con), is from Zhejiang Province and
the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao are from Fujian Province,
the evidence petitioner submitted either related to Fujian
Province, or, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui
Shao, did not discuss forced sterilizations or referenced
isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not
similarly situated to the petitioner. See
id. at 160-61,
171-72. Furthermore, while the petitioner in Yue Xia Xia v.
Holder, No. 11-1966, is from Zhejiang Province, she
testified that she would live in Fujian Province if removed
to China.
05212012-1-10 3
In Sai Yun Pan v. Holder, Nos. 10-1768 (L), 11-117
(Con), Pin Qing Dong v. Holder, No. 10-4319, and Cui Ling
Chen v. Holder, No. 11-1194, contrary to the petitioners’
arguments, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting
certain of the evidence submitted with their motions to
remand as previously available. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1); see also Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice,
421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A motion to
remand that relies on newly available evidence is held to
the substantive requirements of a motion to reopen.”). In
Mao Hui Dong v. Holder, Nos. 10-3085 (L), 11-862 (Con), and
Bi Yan Huang, Song Bin Chen v. Holder, No. 11-581, the BIA
did not err in finding that petitioners failed to
demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief based
on the practice of either Falun Gong or a new religion
because the evidence they submitted did not demonstrate that
Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware
of, their practices. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
528
F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also INS v. Abudu,
485
U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).
We also conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion when, in certain cases, it declined to credit
05212012-1-10 4
letters of a few individuals who claimed they had been
required to undergo sterilization because (1) the letter
were unauthenticated, (2) Petitioner failed to demonstrate
that the circumstances of the authors were similar to his,
and (3) the Board in other cases has rejected such isolated
reports of forced sterilization in light of significant
country evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., Jian Hui
Shao,
546 F.3d at 153, 159-61, 172.
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
05212012-1-10 5