Filed: Mar. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 11-1944 Yang 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 PAR
Summary: 11-1944 Yang 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..
More
11-1944
Yang 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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 12th day of March, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ____________________________________
12
13 YA QING YANG v. HOLDER 11-1944
14 A073 562 612
15 ____________________________________
16
17 XIU YAN LIN, AKA XIUYAN LIN 11-1993
18 v. HOLDER,
19 A097 660 210
20 ____________________________________
21
22 JIE LIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-2285
23 A070 893 349
24 ____________________________________
25
26 TIAN JIN ZOU v. HOLDER 12-177
27 A077 309 169
28 ____________________________________
29
30 JIAN LING CHEN v. HOLDER 12-1826
31 A097 740 324
32 ____________________________________
11252013-1-10
1
2 SHAN YOU ZHENG v. HOLDER, 12-2136
3 A073 557 742
4 ____________________________________
5
6 KONG AN NI, AKA KONG-EN NI 12-2892
7 v. HOLDER,
8 A073 765 987
9 ____________________________________
10
11 LIN FEI XIE v. HOLDER 12-4675
12 A099 683 978
13 ____________________________________
14
15 YAN QIN CHEN, AKA SHI NI LIN 13-357
16 v. HOLDER,
17 A077 309 082
18 ____________________________________
19
20 XIAO YAN WU, AKA XIAOYAN WU 13-1793
21 v. HOLDER,
22 A075 955 399
23 ____________________________________
24
25 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
26 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
27 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
28 are DENIED.
29 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
30 BIA that: (1) affirmed a decision of an Immigration Judge
31 (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen; (2) denied a motion to
32 reopen in the first instance; or (3) denied a motion to
33 reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. The applicable
34 standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao
35 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Ke
11252013-1-10 2
1 Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d
2 Cir. 2001); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d
3 Cir. 2006).
4 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
5 motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution
6 because they have had one or more U.S. citizen children in
7 violation of China’s population control program. For
8 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui
9 Shao,
546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s
10 determinations that the petitioners failed to demonstrate
11 either materially changed country conditions that would
12 excuse the untimely or number-barred filing of their motions
13 or their prima facie eligibility for relief. See
id. at
14 158-72. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from
15 Fujian Province, in Jie Lin Chen v. Holder, 11-2285 (3) and
16 Lin Fei Xie v. Holder, 12-4675 (8), petitioners are from
17 Zhejiang Province. However, as with the evidence discussed
18 in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence relating to Zhejiang Province
19 is insufficient because it does not discuss the use of force
20 in the enforcement of the family planning policy. See
id.
21 at 160-61, 171-72.
22
11252013-1-10 3
1 In Xiu Yan Lin v. Holder, 11-1993 (2), Tian Jin Zou v.
2 Holder, 12-177 (4), Jian Ling Chen v. Holder, 12-1826 (5),
3 Lin Fei Xie v. Holder, 12-4675 (8), and Xiao Yan Wu v.
4 Holder, 13-1793 (10), we find no error in the agency’s
5 conclusions that petitioners failed to demonstrate
6 materially changed country conditions with regard to China’s
7 treatment of unregistered religious groups or Falun Gong
8 practitioners. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72; see
9 also Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2008).
10 In Yan Qin Chen v. Holder, 13-357 (9), the BIA did not err
11 in declining to credit the petitioner’s unauthenticated or
12 unsworn individualized evidence in light of the agency’s
13 underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen
14 Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).
15 Finally, in Jie Lin Chen v. Holder, 11-2285 (3), we
16 find no error in the agency’s conclusion that petitioner’s
17 motion to rescind the IJ’s in absentia deportation order was
18 untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); see also
19 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), and that she failed to
20 demonstrate due diligence in pursuing rescission based on
21 her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, see Rashid v.
22 Mukasey,
533 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hua
23 Wang v. BIA,
508 F.3d 710, 715 (2d Cir. 2007).
11252013-1-10 4
1 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
2 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request
6 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
7 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
8 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11252013-1-10 5
