Shi Lu Liu Ni & Zhu v. Sessions , 698 F. App'x 9 ( 2017 )

12-2776; 12-3505; 12-3672; 14-235
Shi; Lu; Liu; Ni & Zhu 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.
_____________________________________
XIN YUN SHI v. SESSIONS, 12-2776
A088 775 992
____________________________________
XIU JUAN LU v. SESSIONS, 12-3505
A097 753 315
____________________________________
YAN YUN LIU v. SESSIONS, 12-3672
A087 441 542
____________________________________
CHEN FENG NI, YU MING ZHU v. SESSIONS 14-235
A088 372 188/189
_____________________________________
10242016-1-4
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.
Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA
that reversed a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting
asylum. The applicable standards of review are well
established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58
(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 related relief 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. The BIA recognized that it reviews an IJ’s factual
findings for clear error, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003,1(d)(3)(1), and
conclusions of law de novo, id. § 1003,1(d)(3)(ii). In each of
the cases covered by this order, the BIA concluded that the IJ
had erred in concluding that the petitioner had established an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because of
2
10242016-1-4
the birth of children in the United States.1 For largely the same
reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no
error in the BIA’s determination. See 546 F.3d at 158-72.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of
Petitioners’ religious persecution claim in Chen Feng Ni, Yu
Ming Zhu v. Lynch, 14-235. Petitioners did not appeal that
ruling to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Grullon v.
Mukasey, 509 F.3d 107, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2008).
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 for stays of removal 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
1. In three of the cases, Nos. 12-3672, 12-3503, and 14-235, the BIA also found clearly
erroneous the IJ’s factual finding that the petitioner had a well founded fear of future persecution.
Because we uphold the BIA’s legal conclusion that the alleged fear of future persecution was not
objectively reasonable, we express no view as to the BIA’s rejection of the IJ’s fact-finding.
3
10242016-1-4