Jin Zhu Zhang v. Holder

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