Filed: Aug. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 10-4809-ag Sun 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: 10-4809-ag Sun 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
10-4809-ag
Sun 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 2nd day of August, 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 JAN WU, AKA SEOK HEE JOO,
15 AKA JIAN YU v. HOLDER, 10-2805-ag
16 A073 134 364
17 _______________________________________
18
19 QIN ZHOU YONG, AKA CHIN KANG CHUA,
20 AKA YUNG CHOU, REN LE QIAN v. HOLDER, 10-4232-ag
21 A070 455 860
22 A072 565 031
23 _______________________________________
24
25 MEI CHANG SUN v. HOLDER, 10-4809-ag
26 A073 583 412
27 _______________________________________
02272012-31-33
1
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
5 are DENIED.
6 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
7 BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of
8 review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
9 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
10 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
11 motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear
12 persecution because they have had one or more children in
13 violation of China’s population control program. For
14 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui
15 Shao,
546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.
16 See
id. at 158-72. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao
17 were from Fujian Province, the petitioners here are from
18 Zhejiang Province. However, as with the evidence discussed
19 in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence they have submitted relating
20 to Zhejiang Province is deficient either because it does not
21 discuss forced sterilizations or because it references
22 isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not
23 similarly situated to the petitioners. See
id. at 160-61,
02272012-31-33 2
1 171-72.
2 The BIA may have erred in rejecting the family planning
3 notice submitted in Jan Wu v. Holder, No. 10-2805-ag, (31)
4 solely based on petitioner’s failure to authenticate that
5 document pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6, see Cao He Lin v.
6 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005).
7 However, remand to the BIA for consideration of the notice
8 would be futile because the notice was not material as it
9 did not demonstrate changed country conditions and it merely
10 referenced the family planning policy’s mandatory
11 sterilization requirement without any indication that such
12 sterilizations are performed by force. See Shunfu Li v.
13 Mukasey,
529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that
14 remand is futile when the Court can confidently “predict
15 that the agency would reach the same decision absent the
16 errors that were made” (internal quotation marks and
17 citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at
18 165, 172.
19 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
20 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
02272012-31-33 3
1 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request
2 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
3 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
4 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
02272012-31-33 4
