13-3695, 13-4327
Lin, Lin v. Sessions
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 9th day of August, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 LI XIAN LIN, JING CHENG JIANG 13-3695
14 v. SESSIONS,
15 A094 783 453, A075 836 455
16 _________________________________________
17
18 QIAO LIN v. SESSIONS, 13-4327
19 A099 683 747
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.
1 These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that
2 affirmed decisions of Immigration Judges (“IJ”) denying asylum,
3 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
4 Torture (“CAT”), and denied motions to remand in the first
5 instance. The applicable standards of review are well
6 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
7 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of
8 Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005).
9 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, applied for
10 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on claims
11 that they fear persecution because they have violated China’s
12 population control program with the birth of their children in
13 the United States. For largely the same reasons as this Court
14 set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the BIA’s
15 determination that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a
16 well-founded fear of persecution based on the birth of their
17 children. See 546 F.3d at 158-72; see also Paul v. Gonzales,
18 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
19 Insofar as Petitioners’ motions to remand were based on
20 their practice of religion or Falun Gong in the United States,
21 the BIA did not err in finding that they failed to demonstrate
2
10242016-14-15
1 their prima facie eligibility for relief. The Petitioners did
2 not submit evidence that Chinese authorities are aware of, or
3 likely to become aware of, their practices. See Hongsheng Leng
4 v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hui
5 Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are
7 DENIED.
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3
10242016-14-15