10-1326
Liu 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 15th day of August, 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 XIU LAN LIN V. HOLDER 10-23 (L)
15 A077 308 988 10-2069 (Con)
16 _____________________________________
17
18 LI XIN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-534
19 A070 908 317
20 _____________________________________
21
22 ZHOU LIN NI v. HOLDER, 10-1018
23 A076 101 338
24 _____________________________________
25
26 JING LING LIU v. HOLDER, 10-1326
27 A077 341 431
28 _____________________________________
29 JIAN X. HUANG v. HOLDER, 10-2421 (L)
30 A070 903 598 10-4722 (Con)
05212012-19-25
1 _____________________________________
2
3 XU CHAN LIN v. HOLDER, 10-3123
4 A078 016 200
5 _____________________________________
6
7 DE MEI CHEN-ZHEN v. HOLDER, 11-2000
8 A079 741 497
9 _____________________________________
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
14 are DENIED.
15 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
16 BIA either affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge
17 (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen or denying a motion to
18 reopen or reconsider in the first instance. The applicable
19 standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao
20 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also
21 Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006).
22 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
23 motions to reopen or reconsider based on their claims that
24 they fear persecution because they have had one or more
25 children in the United States, which they contend is in
26 violation of China’s population control program. For largely
27 the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao,
05212012-19-25 2
1 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s decisions.
2 See id. at 158-72.
3 In Xiu Lan Lin v. Holder, Nos. 10-23 (L), 10-2069
4 (Con), and Zhou Lin Ni v. Holder, No. 10-1018, the BIA did
5 not err in declining to credit individualized and
6 unauthenticated evidence in light of underlying adverse
7 credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
8 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). In De Mei Chen-Zhen v.
9 Holder, No. 11-2000, although the BIA erred in stating that
10 the IJ had found petitioner not credible in his underlying
11 proceedings in 2003 and declining to credit the authenticity
12 of his evidence on that basis, remand would be futile
13 because the BIA’s alternative bases for finding petitioner’s
14 evidence insufficient to warrant reopening were not in
15 error. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir.
16 2008) (finding that remand is futile when the Court can
17 confidently “predict that the agency would reach the same
18 decision absent the errors that were made” (internal
19 quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui
20 Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-72.
21 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
22 are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
23 removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
05212012-19-25 3
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request
3 for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
4 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
5 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
05212012-19-25 4