Ming Zhing Jiang v. Holder , 531 F. App'x 35 ( 2013 )

11-2980 (L)
Jiang 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 Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 25th day of July, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________
MING ZHING JIANG, AKA KHOAN QUOC 10-625
GIANG v. HOLDER,
A077 994 474
____________________________________
JIN QIU JIANG v. HOLDER, 11-2261
A095 648 663
____________________________________
XIA DONG, MIN JIANG v. HOLDER, 11-2980 (L)
A096 266 560 11-3043 (Con)
A073 176 882
____________________________________
SHUN ZHOU CHEN, AKA MING TUNG LEE 11-3695
v. HOLDER,
A078 066 264
____________________________________
07012013-1-4
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 a decision of an Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen or denying a motion to
reopen in the first instance. The applicable standards of
review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Ke Zhen Zhao
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d Cir. 2001).
Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution
because they have had one or more children in violation of
China’s population control program. For largely the same
reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d
138, we find no error in the agency’s decisions. See id. at
158-72.
Furthermore, in Ming Zhing Jiang v. Holder, No. 10-625
(1), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary decision declining to reopen proceedings sua
sponte. See Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469-70 (2d
Cir. 2009). In Xia Dong, Min Jiang v. Holder, 11-2980 (L),
07012013-1-4 2
11-3043 (Con) (3), the BIA reasonably concluded that
Petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie
eligibility for relief on account of their religion. See
Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72. In Shun Zhou Chen v.
Holder, 11-3695 (4), we find no error in the BIA’s
conclusion that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate
materially changed country conditions regarding the
treatment of Catholics in China that would excuse the
untimely filing of his motion. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-
72.
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
07012013-1-4 3