Xiuhui Wang v. Holder , 388 F. App'x 52 ( 2010 )

07-4948-ag; 08-0180-ag
Wang 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 29 th day of July, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________
XIUHUI WANG v. HOLDER, 1 07-4948-ag
A095 377 798
____________________________
MEI JUAN JIANG v. HOLDER, 08-0180-ag
A097 760 104
____________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review, it
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.
03292010-1-2
is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions
for review are DENIED, in part, and DISMISSED, in part.
Both of these petitions challenge a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s
decision pretermitting petitioners’ applications for asylum
and denying their applications for withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Title 8, Section 1158(a)(3) of the United States Code
provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review the
agency’s finding that an asylum application was untimely under
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), or its finding of neither changed
nor extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimeliness
under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Notwithstanding that
provision, however, this Court retains jurisdiction to review
constitutional claims and “questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(D). Because petitioners have raised neither a
constitutional claim nor a question of law, we lack
jurisdiction to review their challenges to the agency’s
pretermission of their applications for asylum. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(3).
Petitioners’ applications for withholding of removal and
03292010-1-2 -2-
CAT relief were based primarily on the birth of one or more
children in the United States. For largely the same reasons
this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, we find no
error in the challenged BIA decisions. 546 F.3d 138, 168-72
(2d Cir. 2008).
For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are
DENIED, in part, and DISMISSED, in part. 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
03292010-1-2 -3-