Ou v. Holder ( 2011 )

08-1238 (L)
Ou 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 24 th day of January, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
FENG YAN CHEN v. HOLDER, 1 07-4870-ag
A097 150 142
_______________________________________
MEI JUAN ZHANG, AKA MEI JUAN ZHENG v. 07-5589-ag
HOLDER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
A077 978 069
_______________________________________
WEN QIN OU v. HOLDER, 08-1238-ag (L);
A098 977 133 08-4314-ag (Con)
_______________________________________
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted
as respondent where necessary.
09072010-1-20
_______________________________________
YANNA CHEN, AKA YAN NA CHEN, 08-3715-ag (L);
HAN TING LIN v. HOLDER, 09-1991-ag (Con)
A099 564 538
A099 564 539
_______________________________________
ZHONG DI GAO v. HOLDER, 08-4392-ag (L);
A099 427 368 09-2098-ag (Con)
_______________________________________
KE LING ZHANG, SU PING ZHANG v. 08-4469-ag
HOLDER,
A094 041 848
A098 689 330
_______________________________________
SU JIE HUANG v. HOLDER, 08-5893-ag
A094 046 294
_______________________________________
LI ZHEN ZHU v. HOLDER, 09-0456-ag
A099 568 254
_______________________________________
REN CHAI YANG, AKA RENCHAI YANG, 09-1661-ag
JING CHUN CHEN, AKA JINGCHUN CHEN,
AKA HAI RONG LIN, AKA HAIRONG LIN,
AKA HAI LIN v. HOLDER,
A099 930 937
A099 930 938
_______________________________________
CAIYUN WANG v. HOLDER, 09-2115-ag
A096 267 343
_______________________________________
XIAO PING CHEN, YONG DI LI v. 09-2287-ag
HOLDER,
A099 320 420
A099 320 421
_______________________________________
09072010-1-20 2
_______________________________________
TING YI LIN v. HOLDER, 09-2849-ag
A075 780 271
_______________________________________
BI YUN HUANG, AKA BI YUN YUANG, 09-2939-ag
AKA VI YUN HUANG v. HOLDER,
A094 813 601
_______________________________________
RU CHEN v. HOLDER, 09-2998-ag
A099 927 476
_______________________________________
XIAO ZHEN YANG v. HOLDER, 09-3025-ag
A093 408 725
_______________________________________
BI HUI LIN v. HOLDER, 09-3042-ag
A094 046 300
_______________________________________
YUN ZHI CHI v. HOLDER, 09-3329-ag
A099 928 058
_______________________________________
LIN WU, LI GUANG DONG v. HOLDER, 09-3397-ag
A078 736 061
A099 930 936
_______________________________________
MEI YING WU, YONG XIU CHEN v. HOLDER, 09-3459-ag
A093 397 371
A093 397 372
_______________________________________
RONG LI, BAO LU LIN v. HOLDER, 09-3550-ag
A097 291 042
A099 592 334
________________________________________________
09072010-1-20 3
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 (“IJ”)
denying asylum and related relief or reversing the IJ’s
decision granting relief. Some of the petitioners 2 also
challenge decisions of the BIA denying motions to remand or
reopen. In those cases in which the BIA affirmed the IJ’s
decision denying relief, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s
opinions, see Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
2008), and in those cases in which the BIA reversed the IJ’s
decision granting relief or denied a motion in the first
instance, we review only the decision of the BIA, see Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
2
The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder, Nos. 08-1238-ag (L),
08-4314-ag (Con); Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder, Nos. 08-3715-
ag (L), 09-1991-ag (Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag
(L), 09-2098-ag (Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Li
Zhen Zhu v. Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ren Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen
v. Holder, No. 09-1661-ag; Xiao Ping Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder,
No. 09-2287-ag; Ting Yi Lin v. Holder, No. 09-2849-ag; Bi Yun Huang
v. Holder, No. 09-2939-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder, No. 09-2998-ag; Xiao
Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag; Yun Zhi Chi v. Holder, No. 09-
3329-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder, No. 09-3397-ag; and Rong
Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3550-ag.
09072010-1-20 4
standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao
v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought
relief from removal based on their claim 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. Although the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were
from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioners here,
some petitioners 3 are from Zhejiang Province. Regardless, as
with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence
they have submitted relating to Zhejiang Province either does
not discuss forced sterilizations or references isolated
incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly
situated to the petitioners. See id. at 160-61, 171-72.
Some of the petitioners 4 argue that the BIA failed to give
3
The petitioners in Ke Ling Zhang, Su Ping Zhang v. Holder,
No. 08-4469-ag; Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Ting Yi Lin
v. Holder, No. 09-2849-ag; and Ru Chen v. Holder, No. 09-2998-ag.
4
The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder, Nos. 08-1238-ag (L),
08-4314-ag (Con); Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder, Nos. 08-3715-
ag (L), 09-1991-ag (Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag
(L), 09-2098-ag (Con); Li Zhen Zhu v. Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ren
Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen v. Holder, No. 09-1661-ag; Xiao Ping
Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder, No. 09-2287-ag; Bi Yun Huang v. Holder,
09072010-1-20 5
sufficient consideration to the statement of Jin Fu Chen, who
alleged that he suffered forced sterilization after his return
to China based on the two children born to his wife in Japan.
A prior panel of this Court has remanded a petition making a
similar claim so that Jin Fu Chen’s statement (which was
submitted to the BIA after a remand) could be considered by
the IJ. See Zheng v. Holder, No. 07-3970-ag (2d Cir. Jan. 15,
2010). Since the remand in Zheng, the BIA has repeatedly
concluded that Jin Fu Chen’s statement does not support a
claim of a well-founded fear of persecution. Accordingly, it
is clear that further consideration of the statement in cases
in which the IJ or the BIA failed to consider it would not
change the result. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141,
150 (2d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the agency’s conclusion
concerning the probative force of the statement did not
involve any error of law. Additionally, contrary to one
petitioner’s 5 argument, there was no error in the agency’s
decision declining to credit a similar statement from Mei Yun
No. 09-2939-ag; Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag; Bi Hui
Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3042-ag; Yun Zhi Chi v. Holder, No. 09-3329-
ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder, No. 09-3397-ag; Mei Ying Wu,
Yong Xiu Chen v. Holder, No. 09-3459-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v.
Holder, No. 09-3550-ag.
5
The petitioner in Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag
(L), 09-2098-ag (Con).
09072010-1-20 6
Chen because it was a photocopy from an unrelated case. See
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d
Cir. 2006).
Some of the petitioners 6 also argue that the BIA erred by
improperly conducting de novo review of determinations made by
an IJ. Many of them rely on a recent decision of the Third
Circuit, ruling, in the context of a claim under the
Convention Against Torture, that the BIA must review for clear
error findings of fact, including predictions of future
events, but may review de novo conclusions of law as to
whether the facts found satisfy a particular legal standard.
See Kaplun v. Attorney General, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010).
Their claims lack merit. The BIA has not reviewed de novo any
of the IJ’s factual findings. Instead, the BIA has concluded,
on de novo review, that the facts, as found by the IJ, do not
meet the legal standard of an objectively reasonable fear of
6
The petitioners in Feng Yan Chen v. Holder, No. 07-4870-ag;
Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder, Nos. 08-3715-ag (L), 09-1991-ag
(Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag (L), 09-2098-ag
(Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Li Zhen Zhu v.
Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ren Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen v. Holder,
No. 09-1661-ag; Caiyun Wang v. Holder, No. 09-2115-ag; Xiao Ping
Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder, No. 09-2287-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder, No.
09-2998-ag; Bi Hui Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3042-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang
Dong v. Holder, No. 09-3397-ag; Mei Ying Wu, Yong Xiu Chen v.
Holder, No. 09-3459-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder, No. 09-
3550-ag.
09072010-1-20 7
persecution. That approach is entirely consistent with the
applicable regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3). See Jian Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at 162-63 (concluding that the BIA did not
erroneously conduct de novo review of the IJ’s factual
findings by making “a legal determination that, while
[petitioners’] credible testimony was sufficient to
demonstrate a genuine subjective fear of future persecution,
more was needed to demonstrate the objective reasonableness of
that fear”).
In denying some of the petitioners’ 7 motions, the BIA
reasonably found that certain of the newly submitted documents
were previously obtainable, see INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94,
104-05 (1988), or declined to review evidence submitted for
the first time on appeal absent any argument as to why such
evidence merited further consideration on remand, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(iv); see also Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 57, 74 (BIA 1984). Regardless, the evidence submitted in
support of the petitioners’ motions was largely cumulative of
7
The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder, Nos. 08-1238-ag (L),
08-4314-ag (Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Li Zhen
Zhu v. Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ting Yi Lin v. Holder, No. 09-2849-
ag; Bi Yun Huang v. Holder, No. 09-2939-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder, No.
09-2998-ag; Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag; Yun Zhi Chi
v. Holder, No. 09-3329-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder, No. 09-
3397-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3550-ag.
09072010-1-20 8
the evidence in the record and not materially distinguishable
from the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao.
Finally, one petitioner 8 argues that the IJ erred by
rejecting her request for an adjournment to submit evidence
demonstrating that her relatives had been forcibly sterilized.
We find that remand for the BIA to consider petitioner’s
argument would be futile because the IJ allowed her to testify
on the subject and her relatives were not similarly situated.
See Shunfu Li, 529 F.3d at 150; see also Jian Hui Shao, 546
F.3d at 160-61.
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
8
The petitioner in Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag.
09072010-1-20 9