Li v. Holder ( 2011 )

10-168-ag
Li 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 23rd day of November, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________
SHITENG DONG v. HOLDER, 1 08-3018-ag
A073 557 296
____________________________________
JINSAI GAO v. HOLDER, 09-4028-ag
A073 651 682
____________________________________
MIN XIU HAN v. HOLDER, 09-4074-ag
A095 476 767
____________________________________
MING ZHONG ZHANG, A.K.A. MINGZHONG
ZHANG v. HOLDER, 09-4795-ag
A072 182 417
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
1
General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted where necessary.
08012011-1-28
____________________________________
QIU MEI WANG, DING TIAN SHI
v. HOLDER, 09-5116-ag (L);
A097 852 121 09-5152-ag(Con)
A073 133 332
____________________________________
YUSHEN JIANE, A.K.A. YU ZHEN JIANG,
a.k.a. KEIKO AKI SADA v. HOLDER, 09-5264-ag
A072 830 286
____________________________________
FENG MEI LIN v. HOLDER, 10-29-ag
A077 318 283
____________________________________
NENG QUAN WANG v. HOLDER, 10-57-ag
A099 927 095
____________________________________
YUN LI v. HOLDER, 10-168-ag
A074 235 378
____________________________________
LIN YING ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-295-ag
A077 998 402
____________________________________
XIU JING WANG v. HOLDER, 10-475-ag
A073 185 389
____________________________________
MIN XING LIN v. HOLDER, 10-965-ag
A077 714 475
____________________________________
SHU GUI CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-968-ag
A073 608 654
____________________________________
XIN YAO LIU v. HOLDER, 10-1032-ag
A073 568 404
____________________________________
08012011-1-28 -2-
YE LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1322-ag
A072 054 302
____________________________________
HUI YONG ZHOU v. HOLDER, 10-1407-ag
A070 528 767
____________________________________
HUA LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1413-ag
A099 589 605
____________________________________
ZHIFANG ZCANG-CHEN, A.K.A. ZHI-FANG
CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-1454-ag
A074 324 611
____________________________________
YI LUAN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1501-ag
A074 234 673
____________________________________
XIN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-1911-ag
A078 016 148
____________________________________
YUAN XIU LI v. HOLDER, 10-2033-ag
A072 780 314
____________________________________
GUO YAN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2306-ag
A076 506 678
____________________________________
ZHONG YAN ZHENG v. HOLDER, ET AL., 10-2362-ag
A072 485 094
____________________________________
ER SHENG LAN v. HOLDER, 10-2431-ag
A075 776 712
____________________________________
TIANXING ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-2462-ag
A073 676 625
____________________________________
08012011-1-28 -3-
JINBEI ZHAO, A.K.A. KAZUMI MILYATA
v. HOLDER, 10-2526-ag
A077 107 399
____________________________________
HENG-LUN CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2633-ag
A073 523 956
____________________________________
LI MIN WEI v. HOLDER, 10-2704-ag
A073 042 018
____________________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 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
either affirming the decision of an immigration judge denying a
motion to reopen or denying a motion to reopen in the first
instance. The applicable standards of review by this Court are
well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions
to reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because
they have one or more children in violation of China’s coercive
population control program. For largely the same reasons as this
Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-73, we find no
error in the BIA’s decisions. While the petitioners in Jian Hui
Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioners
08012011-1-28 -4-
here, one of the petitioners2 is from Zhejiang Province. As with
the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao related to Fujian
Province, her evidence related to Zhejiang Province was deficient
in some instances because it does not discuss forced
sterilizations and in the remainder because it references isolated
incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly
situated to the petitioner. See id. at 160-61, 170-71. The BIA
did not err in declining to credit some of the petitioners’3
unauthenticated evidence in light of an underlying adverse
credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500
F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).
Two of the petitioners4 argue that the agency applied an
incorrect burden of proof by requiring them to establish a
certainty of persecution. To the contrary, in those cases, the
agency either reasonably relied on their failure to demonstrate
changed country conditions or explicitly applied the appropriate
prima facie standard. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.
2
The petitioner in Xiu Jing Wang v. Holder, No. 10-475-ag.
3
The petitioners in Ming Zhong Zhang v. Holder, No. 09-4795-ag; Feng Mei
Lin v. Holder, No. 10-29-ag; Xiu Jing Wang v. Holder, No. 10-475-ag; Min Xing
Lin v. Holder, No. 10-965-ag; Xin Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1911-ag; Yuan Xiu Li
v. Holder, No. 10-2033-ag; and Tianxing Zheng v. Holder, No. 10-2462-ag.
4
The petitioners in Hua Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1413-ag; and Li Min Wei v.
Holder, No. 10-2704-ag.
08012011-1-28 -5-
Four of the petitioners5 argue that the BIA erred in
discounting notices they submitted, purportedly issued by family
planning officials, solely because they were unauthenticated.
While the agency may err in rejecting a document solely based on
the alien’s failure to properly authenticate the document pursuant
to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428
F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005), the notices were not material to
petitioners’ claims because they merely referenced the family
planning policy’s mandatory sterilization requirement without
indicating that such sterilizations are performed by force, see
Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 165, 172.
In Feng Mei Lin v. Holder, No. 10-29-ag, we decline to either
consider the extra-record evidence petitioner submitted or remand
for the agency to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); see also
Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2007).
Because the agency did not err in finding that the petitioners in
JinSai Gao v. Holder, No. 09-4028-ag, Neng Quan Wang v. Holder,
No. 10-57-ag, and Yi Luan Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1501-ag, failed
to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief, and
because that finding was dispositive of their motions to reopen,
we need not consider the additional arguments raised in their
briefs. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.
5
The petitioners in Shu Gui Chen v. Holder, No. 10-968-ag; Ye Lin v.
Holder, No. 10-1322-ag; Hui Yong Zhou v. Holder, No. 10-1407-ag, and Heng-Lun
Chen v. Holder, No. 10-2633-ag.
08012011-1-28 -6-
We are without jurisdiction to consider two of the petitions6
to the extent they challenge the agency’s underlying denial of the
petitioners’ applications for asylum and related relief because
petitioners did not timely petition for review of those decisions.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).
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
6
The petitioners in Shiteng Dong v. Holder, No. 08-3018-ag; and Guo Yan
Chen v. Holder, No. 10-2306-ag.
08012011-1-28 -7-