13-2663
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A087 448 209
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 November, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MEIXIANG CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-2663
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
27
28
08152014-B3-5
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Leslie McKay, Assistant
3 Direcor; Ilissa M. Gould, Trial
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Meixiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks
13 review of a June 13, 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming
14 the July 18, 2012, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary
15 Cheng, denying his application for asylum, withholding of
16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
17 (“CAT”). In re Meixiang Chen, No. A087 448 209 (B.I.A. June
18 13, 2013), aff’g No. A087 448 209 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July
19 18, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
22 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
23 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
24 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The
25 applicable standards of review are well established. See
26
08152014-B3-5 2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 Chen applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
4 CAT relief based, in part, on his claim that he fears
5 persecution because he has had more than one child in
6 violation of China’s population control program. For
7 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui
8 Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s
9 determination that Chen failed to demonstrate his
10 eligibility for relief on that ground. See id. at 158-72.
11 We also find no error in the agency’s determination
12 that Chen failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief
13 based on his religion. The evidence Chen submitted did not
14 demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely
15 to become aware of, his religious practice. See Hongsheng
16 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
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
08152014-B3-5 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
08152014-B3-5 4
Chen v. Holder
Combined Opinion