Filed: Feb. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-4077 Jiang v. Whitaker BIA Page, IJ A072 375 217 A070 868 759 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
Summary: 16-4077 Jiang v. Whitaker BIA Page, IJ A072 375 217 A070 868 759 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 (..
More
16-4077
Jiang v. Whitaker
BIA
Page, IJ
A072 375 217
A070 868 759
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 1st day of February, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 XIU JIN JIANG, GUO ZHONG DONG,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 16-4077
17 NAC
18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Colin
28 J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office
06152016-10
1 of Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, 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 DISMISSED.
9 Petitioners Xiu Jin Jiang and Guo Zhong Dong, natives
10 and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review
11 of a November 14, 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the October
12 3, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
13 asylum and withholding of removal. In re Xiu Jin Jiang, Guo
14 Zhong Dong, Nos. A072 375 217, A070 868 759 (B.I.A. Nov. 14,
15 2016), aff’g No. A072 375 217, A070 868 759 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
16 City Oct. 3, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
17 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and
19 the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck
20 v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).
21 Our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional
22 claims and questions of law because the lead applicant is
23 removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having
24 been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. See
2
07102018-9
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); see also Barco-Sandoval v.
2 Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40-41 (2d Cir. 2008). Jiang does not
3 raise any such arguments. We note that her challenge to the
4 agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on
5 the birth of her children in the United States, allegedly in
6 violation of China’s family planning policy, which is the
7 only claim she does not abandon, is foreclosed by Jian Hui
8 Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 158-67 (2d Cir. 2008); see
9 also Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 And we need not consider the agency’s alternative basis for
11 denying asylum. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
12 (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to
13 make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary
14 to the results they reach.”).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DISMISSED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
19 Clerk of Court
3
07102018-9
