Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2020
Summary: 10-3993 Lin 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 PART
Summary: 10-3993 Lin 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..
More
10-3993
Lin 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.
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 23rd day of July, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ____________________________________
13
14 QIU FENG ZHENG, AKA QUI FENG ZHENG,
15 AKA MA NAN HSUEN v. BUREAU OF
16 CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 10-1849-ag
17 A077 309 471
18 ____________________________________
19
20 CHUN GUO CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2010-ag
21 A072 564 910
22 ____________________________________
23
24 MAOLI DONG v. HOLDER, 10-2072-ag
25 A095 377 535
26 ____________________________________
27
28 LI BIN ZHAO v. HOLDER, 10-2364-ag
29 A077 023 117
30 ____________________________________
31
02272012-1-10
1 BI-FENG LIU v. HOLDER, 10-2867-ag
2 A073 132 497
3 ____________________________________
4
5 YUFANG QIU, BAI XIANG LIN
6 v. HOLDER, 10-2933-ag
7 A096 248 506
8 A079 141 366
9 ____________________________________
10
11 TAN FENG LING v. HOLDER, 10-3734-ag
12 A077 322 844
13 ____________________________________
14
15 YONG DA CHEN, AKA YONGDA CHEN,
16 AKA LANGDA CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-3821-ag
17 A073 161 895
18 ____________________________________
19
20 MAO ZHOU LIN, AKA
21 MAO ZAI LIN v. HOLDER, 10-3993-ag
22 A077 309 112
23 ____________________________________
24
25 XIU MEI ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-4123-ag
26 A095 365 126
27 ____________________________________
28
29 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
30 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
31 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for
32 review are DENIED.
33 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
34 BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of
35 review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
36 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
02272012-1-10 2
1 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
2 motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear
3 persecution because they have had one or more children in
4 violation of China’s population control program. For
5 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui
6 Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.
7 See
id. at 158-72. Moreover, the BIA did not err in
8 declining to credit the petitioners’ unauthenticated
9 evidence in light of the agency’s underlying adverse
10 credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
11
500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).
12 In Maoli Dong v. Holder, No. 10-2072-ag, (3) we are
13 without jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s argument
14 that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings as a
15 matter of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales,
448 F.3d 515,
16 518 (2d Cir. 2006). In Li Bin Zhao v. Holder, No. 10-2364-
17 ag, (4) there is no merit to the petitioner’s argument that
18 motions to reopen seeking relief under the Convention
19 Against Torture (“CAT”) are excused from the applicable time
20 and numerical limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)
21 (providing the time and numerical limitations applicable to
22 motions to reopen); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2) (excusing
02272012-1-10 3
1 the time and numerical limitations for filing a motion to
2 reopen to seek CAT relief only for aliens whose removal
3 orders became final prior to March 22, 1999 and who moved to
4 reopen proceedings before June 21, 1999)).
5 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
6 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request
10 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
11 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
12 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
02272012-1-10 4
