Liu v. Holder ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          10-5151-ag
    Liu 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 23rd day of July, 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       MING SHENG ZHU v. HOLDER,                              10-4432-ag
    15       A079 673 541
    16       _______________________________________
    17
    18       BEN CHEN v. HOLDER,                                    10-4718-ag
    19       A072 473 754
    20       _______________________________________
    21
    22       EN CHEN, AKA YIN CHEN v. HOLDER,                       10-4742-ag
    23       A077 309 013
    24       _______________________________________
    25
    26       SAI YING CHEN v. HOLDER,                               10-4997-ag
    27       A098 775 949
    28       _______________________________________
    02272012-11-20
    1
    2   ZU HUA LIU v. HOLDER,                       10-5151-ag
    3   A077 297 009
    4   _______________________________________
    5
    6   NAI YU JIANG v. HOLDER,                     10-5154-ag
    7   A078 745 496
    8   _______________________________________
    9
    10   WANG ZHANG, AKA WANG ZHENG v. HOLDER,       11-443-ag
    11   A072 455 620
    12   _______________________________________
    13
    14   CHANG LONG UO,
    15   AKA CHANG-LONG OU v. HOLDER,                11-464-ag
    16   A076 505 684
    17   _______________________________________
    18
    19   WAN PING LIN, YAN QING ZHU v. HOLDER,       11-1638-ag
    20   A070 892 381
    21   A070 868 369
    22   _______________________________________
    23
    24   QING YOU CHEN v. HOLDER,                    11-1961-ag
    25   A073 173 328
    26   _______________________________________
    27
    28           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
    29   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
    30   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for
    31   review are DENIED.
    32           Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
    33   BIA denying a motion to reopen.     The applicable standards of
    34   review are well-established.     See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
    35   
    546 F.3d 138
    , 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
    02272012-11-20                  2
    1           Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed
    2   motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear
    3   persecution because they have had one or more children in
    4   violation of China’s population control program.           For
    5   largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui
    6   Shao, 
    546 F.3d 138
    , we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.
    7   See 
    id. at 158-72
    .
    8           Although the BIA may err in rejecting family planning
    9   notices, such as those submitted in some of these cases,
    10   solely based on a failure to authenticate pursuant to
    11   
    8 C.F.R. § 1287.6
    , see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
    12   
    428 F.3d 391
    , 403 (2d Cir. 2005), it does not abuse its
    13   discretion in according diminished weight to notices that
    14   have not been authenticated by any means, see Xiao Ji Chen
    15   v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    471 F.3d 315
    , 341-42 (2d Cir.
    16   2006).           Regardless, remand to the BIA for consideration of
    17   the family planning notices would be futile because the
    18   notices merely referenced the family planning policy’s
    19   mandatory sterilization requirement without any indication
    20   that such sterilizations are performed by force.           See Shunfu
    21   Li v. Mukasey, 
    529 F.3d 141
    , 150 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding
    22   that remand is futile when the Court can confidently
    02272012-11-20                        3
    1   “predict that the agency would reach the same decision
    2   absent the errors that were made” (internal quotation marks
    3   and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui Shao, 
    546 F.3d at
    4   165, 172.
    5           For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
    6   are DENIED.      As we have completed our review, any stay of
    7   removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
    8   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    9   these petitions is DISMISSED as moot.      Any pending request
    10   for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
    11   with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
    12   Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    13                                  FOR THE COURT:
    14                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    15
    16
    02272012-11-20                   4