11-2015
    Li 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, 

, 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, 

, 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, 

, 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, 

, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also INS v. Abudu, 

, 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