Filed: Aug. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-1230-ag Chen 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
Summary: 11-1230-ag Chen 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..
More
11-1230-ag
Chen 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 9th 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 MIAO CHEN, AKA MAO CHEN V. HOLDER 11-58-ag
15 A077 293 499
16 ____________________________________
17
18 JAN SHING LIN, AKA JIAN-XIN LIN,
19 LEE CHING CHEN, AKA LI-QIN CHEN
20 v. HOLDER, 11-226-ag
21 A070 115 803
22 A070 115 804
23 ____________________________________
24
25 GUO MOU LI v. HOLDER, 11-363-ag
26 A070 901 706
27 ____________________________________
28
29
04302012-11-22
1 CHUNMEI CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1230-ag
2 A096 266 559
3 ____________________________________
4
5 DI DI QIU v. HOLDER, 11-1358-ag
6 A073 604 510
7 ____________________________________
8
9 LU QIANG LIN v. HOLDER, 11-1449-ag
10 A073 189 038
11 ____________________________________
12
13 CAI YUN WU v. HOLDER, 11-1557-ag
14 A200 115 826
15 ____________________________________
16
17 LING LIU DONG, AKA LIN LU DONG v. 11-2207-ag
18 HOLDER,
19 A078 299 082
20 ____________________________________
21
22 MIN TONG ZHENG v. HOLDER, 11-2251-ag
23 A078 227 081
24 ____________________________________
25
26 MING DUAN CHAN, AKA MING DUAN ZHAN, 11-2506-ag
27 AKA MING DUAN ZHANG v. HOLDER,
28 A077 957 616
29 ____________________________________
30
31 CHI-HSUN CHEN, AKA QI XUN CHEN 11-2558-ag
32 v. HOLDER,
33 A076 810 625
34 ____________________________________
35
36 YING XUE LIN v. HOLDER, 11-3063-ag
37 A077 281 071
38 ____________________________________
39
40 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
41 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
04302012-11-22 2
1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
2 are DENIED.
3 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
4 BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of
5 review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
6
546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
7 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
8 motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear
9 persecution because they have had one or more children in
10 the United States in violation of China’s population control
11 program. All of the petitioners argued that changed country
12 conditions regarding the enforcement of China’s population
13 control population should excuse the untimely filing of
14 their motions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R.
15 § 1003.2(c).
16 For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in
17 Jian Hui Shao,
546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s
18 decisions. See id. at 158-72. Moreover, the BIA did not
19 err in declining to credit the petitioners’ individualized
20 and unauthenticated evidence in light of the agency’s
21 underlying adverse credibility determinations. See Qin Wen
22 Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).
04302012-11-22 3
1 In Miao Chen v. Holder, No. 11-58-ag, the BIA did not
2 err in finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate
3 material changed country conditions regarding the treatment
4 of Christians in China sufficient to excuse the untimely
5 filing of his motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
6 In Min Tong Zheng v. Holder, No. 11-2251-ag, the BIA did not
7 err in finding that petitioner’s medical condition did not
8 constitute a valid exception to the time limitation
9 applicable to his motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
11 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
12 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request
16 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
17 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
18 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
04302012-11-22 4