Xiao Hong Zhou v. Holder

08-0633-ag Zhou v. Holder BIA A098 272 444 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 XIAO HONG ZHOU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 08-0633-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. 08232010-27 1 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant 4 Attorney General; Michael P. 5 Lindemann, Assistant Director; 6 Christopher C. Fuller, Senior 7 Litigation Counsel, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United 9 States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, D.C. 11 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 15 is DENIED. 16 Xiao Hong Zhou, a native and citizen of China, seeks 17 review of a January 11, 2008, BIA order denying her motion 18 to reopen. In re Xiao Hong Zhou, No. A098 272 444 (B.I.A. 19 Jan. 11, 2008). Zhou’s motion to reopen was based on her 20 claim that she fears persecution on account of the birth of 21 her U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family 22 planning policy. The government argues that we lack 23 jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s denial of 24 Zhou’s motion to reopen because the agency pretermitted as 25 untimely her original asylum application based on the birth 26 of her U.S. citizen children. We assume hypothetical 27 jurisdiction in this case because “the jurisdictional issues 28 are complex and the substance of the claim is . . . plainly 08232010-27 2 1 without merit.” Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 2 F.3d 332, 338 n.2 (2d Cir. 2006). 3 For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in 4 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), 5 we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying Zhou’s motion 6 to reopen. See id. at 168-72. Although Zhou is from 7 Zhejiang Province and the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao are 8 from Fujian Province, before the agency, as in her counseled 9 brief to this Court, Zhou relied on the evidence considered 10 in Jian Hui Shao and country conditions evidence related to 11 provinces other than Zhejiang. Additionally, as with the 12 evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the record evidence 13 related to Zhejiang Province either does not discuss forced 14 sterilization or references isolated incidents in which 15 individuals not similarly situated to Zhou were persecuted. 16 See id. at 160-61. 17 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is 18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 08232010-27 3 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 08232010-27 4