Dong v. Holder

10-3007 Dong 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