Meixiang Chen v. Holder ( 2014 )

13-591
Wu v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A055 434 128
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 3rd day of November, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 FU LIN WU, AKA FUN LIN WU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-591
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
28 Director; Lindsay W. Zimliki, Trial
08152014-B3-3
1 Attorney, Office of Immigration
2 Litigation, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Fu Lin Wu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
10 of a January 31, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the
11 August 4, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven
12 Abrams, denying his application for asylum, withholding of
13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Fu Lin Wu, No. A055 434 128 (B.I.A. Jan. 31,
15 2013), aff’g No. A055 434 128 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4,
16 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
19 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
20 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
21 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The
22 applicable standards of review are well established. See
23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
24 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
08152014-B3-3 2
1 Wu applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
2 relief based on his claim that he fears persecution in his
3 home province of Heilongjiang because he has had more than
4 one child in violation of China’s population control
5 program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set
6 forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.
7 2008), we find no error in the agency’s determination that
8 Wu failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief. See
9 id. at 158-72.
10 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending
12 request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
13 accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
14 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
08152014-B3-3 3