Wang Zhu Chen Xie v. Holder

12-555; 12-3715; 13-1514; 13-2524
Wang; Zhu; Chen; Xie 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 28th day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ____________________________________
12
13 XIU HUA WANG v. HOLDER 12-555
14 A099 683 277
15 ____________________________________
16
17 XIAOMIN ZHU, FENBIN CHEN v. HOLDER 12-3715
18 A089 009 010, A089 009 011
19 ____________________________________
20
21 HUANG CHEN v. HOLDER 13-1514
22 A095 710 406
23 ____________________________________
24
25 JIN FEI XIE v. HOLDER 13-2524
26 A088 526 019
27 ____________________________________
28
29 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

07162014-B4-1-4
 1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review

2 are DENIED.

3 These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that

4 affirmed decisions of Immigration Judges (“IJ”) denying

5 asylum and related relief. The applicable standards of

6 review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

7 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

8 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought

9 relief from removal based on claims that they fear

10 persecution because they have had more than one child in

11 violation of China’s population control program. For

12 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui

13 Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s

14 determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate their

15 eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-68.

16 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

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

18 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

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

20 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request

21 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

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

07162014-B4-1-4 2
1 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

2 FOR THE COURT:
3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
5

07162014-B4-1-4 3