07-4083-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 26th day of October, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________
QIU XIA LI v. HOLDER, 1 07-4083-ag
A077 293 487
_____________________________
AI YUE YANG v. HOLDER, 07-4385-ag
A077 121 754
_____________________________
SHI YONG LIN, QING LIN 07-5410-ag
v. HOLDER,
A073 181 133
A076 120 146
_____________________________
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
1
Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted
where necessary.
05242010-1-20
_____________________________
CHUN LIN LU v. HOLDER, 08-0374-ag
A073 169 271
_____________________________
FEI XUE CHENG v. HOLDER, 08-0730-ag
A075 841 743
_____________________________
XIA JUAN SUN v. HOLDER, 08-0901-ag
A077 297 075
_____________________________
SHAO CHENG HE v. HOLDER, 08-0915-ag
A077 641 801
_____________________________
YI XIONG ZHOU v. HOLDER, 08-1528-ag
A072 486 769
_____________________________
YAN QIN CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-1702-ag
A077 309 082
_____________________________
ZHIHUA OU v. HOLDER, 08-1754-ag
A074 153 659
_____________________________
LING ZHI LI v. HOLDER, 08-2012-ag
A077 293 676
_____________________________
RUI XIN LIN v. HOLDER, 08-2195-ag
A029 793 718
_____________________________
GUIYING CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-2258-ag
A078 848 872
_____________________________
05242010-1-20 -2-
_____________________________
YAO XIU ZHENG v. HOLDER, 08-2435-ag
A073 638 337
_____________________________
JIAN FENG LIN v. HOLDER, 08-3775-ag
A073 626 247
_____________________________
BAO HUA WANG, AKA AKIKO 08-3808-ag
KURAHASHI v. HOLDER,
A073 874 040
_____________________________
XIA CHEN v. HOLDER, 08-6156-ag
A070 936 195
_____________________________
CHANGXU JIANG v. HOLDER, 09-1389-ag
A078 711 995
_____________________________
HAI OU SUN v. HOLDER, 09-3564-ag
A071 496 801
_____________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
several Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) orders, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for
review are DENIED.
Each of these petitions challenges a decision of an
immigration judge (“IJ”) or the BIA denying a motion to reopen
based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed
country conditions sufficient to avoid the applicable time and
05242010-1-20 -3-
numerical limits or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima
facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8
C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c), 1003.23(b). We review the denial of a
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales,
448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006).
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 population control program. For largely
the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v.
Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error
in the BIA’s decisions.
Some of the petitioners2 argue that they were eligible to
file a successive asylum application based solely on their
changed personal circumstances. That argument is foreclosed
by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156,
158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). Other petitioners3 challenge the BIA’s
refusal to credit their unauthenticated evidence in light of
2
The petitioners in Qiu Xia Li v. Holder, No. 07-4083-ag; Shi
Yong Lin, Qing Lin v. Holder, No. 07-5410-ag; Xia Juan Sun v.
Holder, No. 08-0901-ag; and Zhihua Ou v. Holder, No. 08-1754-ag.
3
The petitioners in Ai Yue Yang v. Holder, No. 07-4385-ag;
Ling Zhi Li v. Holder, No. 08-2012-ag; Xia Chen v. Holder, No. 08-
6156-ag; and Hai Ou Sun v. Holder, No. 09-3564-ag.
05242010-1-20 -4-
an immigration judge’s underlying adverse credibility
determination. Again, applicable precedent is fatal to that
argument. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47
(2d Cir. 2007) (relying on the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus
in omnibus to conclude that the agency may decline to credit
documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an
alien who was found not credible in the underlying
proceeding).
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
05242010-1-20 -5-