10-3819 (L); 12-3086
Chen; Chen 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.
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.
_____________________________________
HUAN CHEN, AKA MU YANG PAN,
CHENG JIANG, AKA CHANG JANG v. SESSIONS, 10-3819(L),
A090 347 477/478 11-2004(Con)
____________________________________
ZHONG DUAN CHEN v. SESSIONS, 12-3086
A073 178 857
_____________________________________
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
are DENIED.
These petitions challenge BIA decisions that reversed
grants of asylum by Immigration Judges (“IJ”), and declined to
reopen or remand to raise new bases for asylum. 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, all natives and citizens of China, applied for
asylum and sought reopening based on claims that they fear
persecution because they have violated China’s population
control program with the birth of their children in the United
States. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth
in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 156-73, we find no error in the
BIA’s determination on de novo review that Petitioners failed
to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of persecution
based on the birth of their children in the United States.
Insofar as Petitioners’ motions to reopen and remand were
based on their practice of religion or Falun Gong in the United
States, the BIA did not err in finding that they failed to
demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief. The
Petitioners did not submit evidence that Chinese authorities
are aware of, or likely to become aware of, their practices.
2
10242016-7-8
See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008);
see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stays of removal
that the Court previously granted in these petitions are
VACATED, and any pending motions in these petitions are
DISMISSED as moot. Any pending requests for oral argument in
these petitions are DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3
10242016-7-8