Zhou v. Holder

07-5570-ag
Zhou 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 31 st day of August, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________
HOU YONG ZHOU v. HOLDER, 1 07-5570-ag
A077 766 626
_______________________________
ZHONG QUAN YANG v. HOLDER, 07-5753-ag
A073 575 827
_______________________________
XIU LAN HUANG v. HOLDER, 08-0982-ag
A076 790 115
_______________________________
REN CHI HER v. HOLDER, 08-3635-ag
A072 182 628
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted as respondent
in these cases.
051710-8-11
_______________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that these petitions for
review are DENIED.
Each of these petitions challenges an order of the BIA
denying a motion to reopen, or affirming an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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. § 1003.23(b). Under the circumstances of these cases,
we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake
of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d
Cir. 2008). The applicable standard of review is well-
established. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.
2006).
The motions to reopen at issue in these petitions were
each based primarily on the birth of one or more children to
the Chinese citizen petitioners. For largely the same reasons
this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error in the agency’s
051710-8-11 -2-
decisions. See id. at 168-72. Any argument that the
petitioners are eligible to file a successive asylum
application based on changed personal circumstances is
foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). 2
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
2
The petitioner in Hou Yong Zhou v. Holder, 07-5570-ag, rather than
alleging a change in his personal circumstances, argues that he
demonstrated material changed country conditions with respect to the
Chinese government’s treatment of Christians. However, the BIA did not
err in holding that, according to the background evidence in the record,
the government’s treatment of Christians has remained constant.
051710-8-11 -3-