Shun Ting Ke v. Holder , 390 F. App'x 53 ( 2010 )

07-5078-ag (L); 09-0927-ag (Con)
Ke 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 25 th day of August, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________
SHUN TING KE v. HOLDER, 1 07-5078-ag (L);
A070 866 801 09-0927-ag (Con)
_____________________________
GUI HUA ZHANG v. HOLDER, 08-0248-ag
A077 658 067
_____________________________
MEI CHEN CHEN v. BCIS, 08-0371-ag
A077 977 892
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted where
necessary.
04262010-2-20
_____________________________
_____________________________
FANG DONG, JIN HUA ZHENG
v. HOLDER, 08-0508-ag
A073 044 947
A029 794 284
_____________________________
SEN YE, TENG YI CHEN
v. HOLDER, 08-0704-ag
A078 217 878
A076 498 660
_____________________________
ZENG HE WENG v. HOLDER, 08-0705-ag
A073 560 845
_____________________________
ZHI LIN v. HOLDER, 08-4143-ag
A070 903 711
_____________________________
JIAN KONG NI v. HOLDER, 08-4339-ag
A076 506 544
_____________________________
MEIQIAN GAO, aka MEI QIN
GAO v. HOLDER, 08-5611-ag
A078 471 773
_____________________________
XIAO CHON HU, YUE ZHEN YE
v. HOLDER, 08-5674-ag
A072 475 139
A072 475 140
_____________________________
XIUZHEN LIN, aka ZIU ZHEN
LIN, aka XIU ZHEN LIN
v. HOLDER, 09-0024-ag (L),
A076 111 864 09-2570-ag (Con)
04262010-2-20 -2-
_____________________________
_____________________________
XIAO LE WANG aka XIOALE
WANG v. HOLDER, 09-0652-ag
A073 657 562
_____________________________
FANG GUO ZENG, XINZHEN
ZHENG v. HOLDER, 09-0762-ag
A074 588 464
A097 149 843
_____________________________
QIU QIN ZOU v. HOLDER, 09-0925-ag
A070 893 811
_____________________________
XIU FENG ZHENG v. HOLDER, 09-1066-ag
A078 015 622
_____________________________
XAI MEI LIU v. HOLDER, 09-1134-ag
A077 050 836
_____________________________
YAN QING TANG v. HOLDER, 09-2263-ag
A072 183 173
_____________________________
JING GUO CHEN, aka JIN GUO
CHEN v. HOLDER, 09-2746-ag
A072 094 147
_____________________________
XIANG QING LIN, aka PETER
YI CHIN LIN, aka XIANGQIN
LIN v. HOLDER, 09-4611-ag
A077 997 813
_____________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
04262010-2-20 -3-
several 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
denying a motion to reopen based on either the movant’s
failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient
to avoid the time and numerical limits applicable to such
motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
Cir. 2006).
Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
motions to reopen based on their claim that they fear
persecution because they had one or more children in the
United States. 2 For largely the same reasons this Court set
forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d
Cir. 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. To the
extent that some of the petitioners argue that they were
2
To the extent that Petitioner in 08-0705-ag also challenges the
IJ’s underlying decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT relief, we lack jurisdiction to review those
arguments. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001).
04262010-2-20 -4-
eligible to file successive asylum applications based solely
on their changed personal circumstances, such arguments are
foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). 3
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
3
Contrary to the arguments asserted by petitioners in Docket Numbers
07-5078-ag(L), 09-0927-ag(Con), 08-0248-ag, 09-0024-ag(L), 09-2570-
ag(Con), 09-0652-ag, 09-0762-ag, 09-1066-ag, and 09-4611-ag, we find no
error in the BIA’s refusal to credit petitioners’ unauthenticated
evidence in light of the agency’s prior adverse credibility
determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d
Cir. 2007). Further, although petitioners in Docket Numbers 07-5078-
ag(L), 09-0927(Con), 09-0024-ag(L), 09-2570-ag(Con), and 09-1066-ag argue
that the BIA erred by relying on U.S. Department of State Country Reports
that contained mistranslations, that argument is without merit.
04262010-2-20 -5-