10-4837
Lin 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 MEI YUN DONG v. HOLDER, 10-3007
15 A088 527 713
16 _____________________________________
17
18 HUANG LIN v. HOLDER, 10-4837
19 A089 252 035
20 _____________________________________
21
22 YAN RONG LIU v. HOLDER, 10-5046
23 A079 298 642
24 _____________________________________
25
26 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
27 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
05212012-16-18
1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
2 are DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3 Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
4 BIA that: (1) affirmed the decision of an immigration judge
5 (“IJ”) denying asylum and related relief; and (2) denied in
6 the first instance a motion to remand. The applicable
7 standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao
8 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
9 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought
10 relief from removal based on their claims that they fear
11 persecution because they have had one or more children in
12 the United States, which they contend is in violation of
13 China’s population control program. For largely the same
14 reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no
15 error in the agency’s decisions. See id. at 158-72.
16 In Mei Yun Dong v. Holder, No. 10-3007, and Huang Lin
17 v. Holder, No. 10-4837, we lack jurisdiction to review the
18 agency’s pretermission of petitioners’ applications for
19 asylum as untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). See
20 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). In Yan Rong Liu v. Holder, No. 10-
21 5046, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s
22 unexhausted argument that she is eligible for CAT relief.
05212012-16-18 2
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Karaj v. Gonzales, 462
2 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Beharry v. Ashcroft,
3 329 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir. 2003)).
4 For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
5 are DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. As we have
6 completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
7 previously granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any
8 pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is
9 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
10 these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
11 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
12 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
05212012-16-18 3