10-2619 (L)
Wu v. Sessions
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A093 394 028/029
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
DENNIS JACOBS,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
A. LE WU, SHENG JIAN YE,
Petitioners,
10-2619(L),
v. 11-176(Con)
NAC
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New
Jersey.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Emily Anne Radford,
Assistant Director; James A. Hunolt,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
06152016-10
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of two
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
are DENIED.
Petitioners A. Le Wu and Sheng Jian Ye, natives and citizens
of China, seek review of (1) a June 16, 2010, decision of the
BIA that reversed the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
granting asylum, In re A. Le Wu, Sheng Jian Ye, Nos. A093 394
028/029 (B.I.A. June 16, 2010), rev’g Nos. A093 394 028/029
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 17, 2009), and (2) a December 17,
2010, decision of the BIA that denied Wu’s motion to reopen,
In re A. Le Wu, No. A093 394 028 (B.I.A. Dec. 17, 2010). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
The applicable standards of review are well established.
See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d
Cir. 2008); see also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir.
2016). Petitioners applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and
Wu later moved to reopen removal proceedings, asserting a fear
of persecution based on the birth of their children in the United
2
10242016-10
States purportedly in violation of China’s population control
program.
For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian
Hui Shao, we find no error in the BIA’s determination on de novo
review that Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of
establishing an objectively reasonable well founded fear of
persecution. See 546 F.3d at 156-73. The letters from
Petitioners’ relative and friend, claiming to have been
forcibly sterilized, were unsworn and lacked any detail as to
the force used. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 159-66, 170-72;
see also Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013)
(deferring to agency’s decision to afford little weight to
letter that was unsworn and submitted by an interested witness).
The agency did not err in declining to consider evidence
Petitioners failed to timely submit before the IJ. See Dedji
v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3
10242016-10