Chen v. Holder

10-2010-ag Chen 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 23rd day of July, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 ____________________________________ 13 14 QIU FENG ZHENG, AKA QUI FENG ZHENG, 15 AKA MA NAN HSUEN v. BUREAU OF 16 CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 10-1849-ag 17 A077 309 471 18 ____________________________________ 19 20 CHUN GUO CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-2010-ag 21 A072 564 910 22 ____________________________________ 23 24 MAOLI DONG v. HOLDER, 10-2072-ag 25 A095 377 535 26 ____________________________________ 27 28 LI BIN ZHAO v. HOLDER, 10-2364-ag 29 A077 023 117 30 ____________________________________ 31 02272012-1-10 1 BI-FENG LIU v. HOLDER, 10-2867-ag 2 A073 132 497 3 ____________________________________ 4 5 YUFANG QIU, BAI XIANG LIN 6 v. HOLDER, 10-2933-ag 7 A096 248 506 8 A079 141 366 9 ____________________________________ 10 11 TAN FENG LING v. HOLDER, 10-3734-ag 12 A077 322 844 13 ____________________________________ 14 15 YONG DA CHEN, AKA YONGDA CHEN, 16 AKA LANGDA CHEN v. HOLDER, 10-3821-ag 17 A073 161 895 18 ____________________________________ 19 20 MAO ZHOU LIN, AKA 21 MAO ZAI LIN v. HOLDER, 10-3993-ag 22 A077 309 112 23 ____________________________________ 24 25 XIU MEI ZHENG v. HOLDER, 10-4123-ag 26 A095 365 126 27 ____________________________________ 28 29 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 30 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 31 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for 32 review are DENIED. 33 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the 34 BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of 35 review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 36 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 02272012-1-10 2 1 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed 2 motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear 3 persecution because they have had one or more children in 4 violation of China’s population control program. For 5 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui 6 Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. 7 See id. at 158-72. Moreover, the BIA did not err in 8 declining to credit the petitioners’ unauthenticated 9 evidence in light of the agency’s underlying adverse 10 credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 11 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). 12 In Maoli Dong v. Holder, No. 10-2072-ag, (3) we are 13 without jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s argument 14 that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings as a 15 matter of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 16 518 (2d Cir. 2006). In Li Bin Zhao v. Holder, No. 10-2364- 17 ag, (4) there is no merit to the petitioner’s argument that 18 motions to reopen seeking relief under the Convention 19 Against Torture (“CAT”) are excused from the applicable time 20 and numerical limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) 21 (providing the time and numerical limitations applicable to 22 motions to reopen); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2) (excusing 02272012-1-10 3 1 the time and numerical limitations for filing a motion to 2 reopen to seek CAT relief only for aliens whose removal 3 orders became final prior to March 22, 1999 and who moved to 4 reopen proceedings before June 21, 1999)). 5 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review 6 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 7 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions 8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 9 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 10 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance 11 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and 12 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15 02272012-1-10 4