Chen v. Holder ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          11-1015-ag
    Chen 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 2nd 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       XIAO JIE ZHOU v. HOLDER,                               10-1350-ag
    15       A093 394 030
    16       _______________________________________
    17
    18       SHAO LIN CHEN v. HOLDER,                               10-2911-ag
    19       A099 938 936
    20       _______________________________________
    21
    22       WEN QING YANG v. HOLDER,                               10-3684-ag
    23       A099 930 548
    24       _______________________________________
    25
    26       DIANQIN JIANG v. HOLDER,                               10-4919-ag
    27       A089 253 646
    28       _______________________________________
    04302012-1-10
    1
    2   SHUYING CHEN v. HOLDER,                     11-13-ag
    3   A095 164 157
    4   _______________________________________
    5
    6   WEN QING CHEN v. HOLDER,                    11-1015-ag
    7   A099 928 261
    8   _______________________________________
    9
    10   SHU-CHIN LIN v. HOLDER,                     11-1604-ag
    11   A073 034 379
    12   _______________________________________
    13
    14   ZOU-QIANG GAO v. HOLDER,                    11-2062-ag
    15   A072 460 888
    16   _______________________________________
    17
    18   MING KUI XIAO v. HOLDER,                    11-2303-ag
    19   A072 766 265
    20   _______________________________________
    21
    22   FENG ZHI LIN v. HOLDER,                     11-2572-ag
    23   A089 254 238
    24   _______________________________________
    25
    26           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
    27   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
    28   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review
    29   are DENIED.
    30           Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the
    31   BIA affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”)
    32   denying asylum and related relief.     The applicable standards
    33   of review are well-established.     See Jian Hui Shao v.
    34   Mukasey, 
    546 F.3d 138
    , 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
    04302012-1-10                   2
    1
    2           Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought
    3   relief from removal based on their claims that they fear
    4   persecution because they have had one or more children in
    5   the United States, which they contend is in violation of
    6   China’s population control program.     For largely the same
    7   reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no
    8   error in the agency’s decisions.     See 
    id. at 158-72
    .
    9           We also conclude that the agency did not abuse its
    10   discretion when, in certain cases, it declined to credit
    11   letters from a few individuals who claimed that they had
    12   been required to undergo sterilization because (i) the
    13   letters were unauthenticated, (ii) Petitioners failed to
    14   demonstrate that the circumstances of the authors were
    15   similar to their own, and (iii) the agency in other cases
    16   has rejected such isolated reports of forced sterilization
    17   in light of significant country evidence to the contrary.
    18   See, e.g., Mao Hui Dong, No.     A099 934 664 (B.I.A. Feb. 9,
    19   2011); see also Jian Hui Shao, 
    546 F.3d at 153, 159-61, 172
    .
    20           For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review
    21   are DENIED.     As we have completed our review, any stay of
    22   removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions
    04302012-1-10                   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
    8
    9
    04302012-1-10                4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1015-ag

Filed Date: 8/2/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021