Chen-Zhen v. Holder

11-2000 Chen-Zhen 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 [9] 05212012-19-25 4