12-4900; 13-365
Chen; Dong 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 LI FENG CHEN v. HOLDER 12-4900
14 A072 183 171
15 ____________________________________
16
17 JIN XIN DONG, AKA DONG JIN XIN 13-365
18 v. HOLDER,
19 A077 925 467
20 ____________________________________
21
22 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
23 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
24 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
25 are DENIED.
26
07162014-B3-1-2
1 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
2 BIA that denied a motion to reopen. The applicable
3 standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao
4 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
5 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
6 motions to reopen based on claims that they fear persecution
7 because they have had one or more children in violation of
8 China’s population control program. For largely the same
9 reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d
10 138, we find no error in the agency’s determinations that
11 the petitioners failed to demonstrate either materially
12 changed country conditions that would excuse the untimely or
13 number-barred filing of their motions or their prima facie
14 eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72.
15 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
16 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
17 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
18 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
19 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request
20 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
21
22
07162014-B3-1-2 2
1 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
2 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
7
07162014-B3-1-2 3