11-723, 13-3615
Chen, Huang 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 CUI PING CHEN, AKA ANNIE DUONG
14 v. SESSIONS, 11-723
15 A078 853 842
16 ____________________________________
17
18 SHAO LAN HUANG v. SESSIONS, 13-3615
19 A095 758 711
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
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”). The applicable standards of review are well
5 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui
6 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
7 Petitioners, both natives and citizens of China, applied
8 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on
9 claims that they fear persecution because they have violated
10 China’s population control program with the birth of their
11 children in the United States. For largely the same reasons
12 as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in
13 the agency’s determination that Petitioners failed to
14 demonstrate their eligibility for relief. See 546 F.3d at
15 158-68; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
16 2006).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stays of removal
19 that the Court previously granted in these petitions are
20 VACATED, and any pending stay motions in these petitions are
21 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending requests for oral argument in
2
10242016-12-13
1 these petitions are DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
3 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3
10242016-12-13