08-1488-ag
Zhang v. Holder
BIA
A098 717 955
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 27th day of October, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 JIN ZHU ZHANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 08-1488-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,*
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
*
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 as respondent in this case.
08232010-28
1 FOR PETITIONER: June H. Zhou, Boca Raton, Florida.
2
3 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
4 Attorney General; David V. Bernal,
5 Assistant Director; Lindsay E.
6 Williams, Attorney, Office of
7 Immigration Litigation, United
8 States Department of Justice,
9 Washington, D.C.
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
14 is DENIED.
15 Jin Zhu Zhang, a native and citizen of China, seeks
16 review of a February 29, 2008, BIA order denying her motion
17 to reopen. In re Jin Zhu Zhang, No. A098 717 955 (B.I.A.
18 Feb. 29, 2008). Zhang’s motion to reopen was based on her
19 claim that she fears persecution on account of the birth of
20 her U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family
21 planning policy. For largely the same reasons this Court
22 set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d
23 Cir. 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying
24 her motion to reopen. See id. at 168-72.
25 The BIA reasonably declined to address all but one of
26 Zhang’s documents related to country conditions in China
27 because she failed to establish that such evidence was
08232010-28 2
1 previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see
2 also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). Although
3 Zhang correctly contends that her children’s birth
4 certificates were previously unavailable, the birth of her
5 children alone did not demonstrate her prima facie
6 eligibility for relief, and the previously unavailable
7 document related to country conditions in China did not
8 discuss the use of forced sterilization, or other forms of
9 persecution, in the enforcement of China’s family planning
10 policy. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72.
11 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
08232010-28 3