Lin v. Holder

11-3224
Lin 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 3rd day of February, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ____________________________________
12
13 JOHN JIN CHEN, AKA ZUN JIN CHEN 10-4185
14 v. HOLDER,
15 A072 460 750
16 ____________________________________
17
18 QI CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-4983
19 A073 674 220
20 ____________________________________
21
22 MEI MEI CHEN v. HOLDER, 11-1210
23 A099 589 759
24 ____________________________________
25
26 YONG LIN v. HOLDER 11-3224
27 A072 763 849
28 ____________________________________
29 QIU DAN CHI v. HOLDER 11-3817
30 A077 050 604
31 ____________________________________
32 JI SHUN ZHENG, AKA QI SHEN JENG, 11-4858
33 v. HOLDER,
34 A077 977 705
35 ____________________________________
 1 YU BIAO WENG v. HOLDER, 12-706
2 A073 646 956
3 ____________________________________
4
5 DIAN SHAN JIANG v. HOLDER 12-1808
6 A073 576 384
7 ____________________________________
8
9 YOANG-QING WONG, AKA YONG-QING 12-2021
10 WANG, AKA YUN SOON KIM v. HOLDER,
11 A070 011 218
12 ____________________________________
13
14 XIAO YAN DONG v. HOLDER, 12-3141
15 A098 648 027
16 ____________________________________
17
18 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

19 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby

20 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review

21 are DENIED.

22 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

23 BIA that: (1) affirmed a decision of an Immigration Judge

24 (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen; (2) denied a motion to

25 reopen in the first instance; or (3) denied a motion to

26 reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. The applicable

27 standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao

28 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Ke

29 Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d

30 Cir. 2001); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d

31 Cir. 2006).

2
 1 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

2 motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution

3 because they have had one or more children in violation of

4 China’s population control program. For largely the same

5 reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d

6 138, we find no error in the agency’s determinations that

7 the petitioners failed to demonstrate either (a) materially

8 changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely or

9 number-barred filing of their motions, or (b) their prima

10 facie eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72.

11 In John Jin Chen v. Holder, 10-4185 (1), and Dian Shan

12 Jiang v. Holder, 12-1808 (8), we find no error in the BIA’s

13 conclusions that petitioners failed to demonstrate

14 materially changed country conditions with regard to China’s

15 treatment of their religious groups or establish their prima

16 facie eligibility for relief on account of their religious

17 practices. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72; see also

18 Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2008). In

19 Ji Shun Zheng v. Holder, No. 11-4858 (6), and Yu Biao Weng

20 v. Holder, No. 12-706 (7), the BIA did not err in finding

21 that petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie

22 eligibility for relief based on their religious practices

3
 1 because the evidence they submitted did not demonstrate that

2 Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware

3 of, their practices. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528

4 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546

5 F.3d at 168.

6 Finally, in Qi Chen v. Holder, 10-4983 (2), Dian Shan

7 Jiang v. Holder, 12-1808 (8), and Yoang-Qing Wong v. Holder,

8 12-2021 (9), the BIA did not err in declining to credit the

9 petitioners’ unauthenticated, individualized evidence in

10 light of the agency’s underlying adverse credibility

11 determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d

12 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

13 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

14 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

15 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

17 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request

18 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

19 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and

20 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24

4