Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-1638-ag Lin & Zhu 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”
Summary: 11-1638-ag Lin & Zhu 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”)..
More
11-1638-ag
Lin & Zhu 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 MING SHENG ZHU v. HOLDER, 10-4432-ag
15 A079 673 541
16 _______________________________________
17
18 BEN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4718-ag
19 A072 473 754
20 _______________________________________
21
22 EN CHEN, AKA YIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4742-ag
23 A077 309 013
24 _______________________________________
25
26 SAI YING CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4997-ag
27 A098 775 949
28 _______________________________________
02272012-11-20
1
2 ZU HUA LIU v. HOLDER, 10-5151-ag
3 A077 297 009
4 _______________________________________
5
6 NAI YU JIANG v. HOLDER, 10-5154-ag
7 A078 745 496
8 _______________________________________
9
10 WANG ZHANG, AKA WANG ZHENG v. HOLDER, 11-443-ag
11 A072 455 620
12 _______________________________________
13
14 CHANG LONG UO,
15 AKA CHANG-LONG OU v. HOLDER, 11-464-ag
16 A076 505 684
17 _______________________________________
18
19 WAN PING LIN, YAN QING ZHU v. HOLDER, 11-1638-ag
20 A070 892 381
21 A070 868 369
22 _______________________________________
23
24 QING YOU CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1961-ag
25 A073 173 328
26 _______________________________________
27
28 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
29 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
30 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for
31 review are DENIED.
32 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
33 BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of
34 review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
35 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
02272012-11-20 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.
8 Although the BIA may err in rejecting family planning
9 notices, such as those submitted in some of these cases,
10 solely based on a failure to authenticate pursuant to
11 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
12
428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005), it does not abuse its
13 discretion in according diminished weight to notices that
14 have not been authenticated by any means, see Xiao Ji Chen
15 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir.
16 2006). Regardless, remand to the BIA for consideration of
17 the family planning notices would be futile because the
18 notices merely referenced the family planning policy’s
19 mandatory sterilization requirement without any indication
20 that such sterilizations are performed by force. See Shunfu
21 Li v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding
22 that remand is futile when the Court can confidently
02272012-11-20 3
1 “predict that the agency would reach the same decision
2 absent the errors that were made” (internal quotation marks
3 and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at
4 165, 172.
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
16
02272012-11-20 4
