Filed: Dec. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 14-2402 Xia v. Whitaker BIA Sichel, IJ A088 524 649 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 NOT
Summary: 14-2402 Xia v. Whitaker BIA Sichel, IJ A088 524 649 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 NOTA..
More
14-2402
Xia v. Whitaker
BIA
Sichel, IJ
A088 524 649
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 TO 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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 18th day of December, two thousand
5 eighteen.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JON O. NEWMAN,
9 DENNIS JACOBS,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 JIANDONG XIA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 14-2402
18 NAC
19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
28 Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant
29 Director; Michael C. Heyse, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
06152016-10
1 Litigation, United States
2 Department of Justice, Washington,
3 DC.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Jiandong Xia, a native and citizen of the
10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 4, 2014,
11 BIA decision that affirmed the August 24, 2012, decision of
12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Jiandong Xia, No. A088 524 649 (B.I.A. June
15 4, 2014), aff’g No. A088 524 649 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug.
16 24, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s
19 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
21 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
22 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138,
23 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
24 Xia applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
2
07102018-2
1 relief, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of
2 his children in the United States in violation of China’s
3 population control program. As an initial matter, contrary
4 to Xia’s contention, the agency applied the correct standard
5 of review when considering his application. See id. at 156-
6 57 & n.15.
7 For largely the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui
8 Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Xia
9 failed to satisfy his burden for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and CAT relief. See
id. at 158-67; see also Paul
11 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). While the
12 petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, and
13 Xia is from Zhejiang Province, as with the evidence discussed
14 in Jian Hui Shao, Xia’s evidence related to Zhejiang Province
15 does not describe the use of force in the enforcement of the
16 family planning policy against Chinese nationals returning
17 with U.S.-born children. See
id. at 160-61, 165-66, 171-72.
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
20 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
23 Clerk of Court
3
07102018-2
