Xiu Hua Wang v. Holder

Full title: XIU HUA WANG v. HOLDER A099 683 277 XIAOMIN ZHU, FENBIN CHEN v. HOLDER…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 28, 2014

582 F. App'x 16 (2d Cir. 2014)

Opinion

12-555 12-3715 13-1514 13-2524

10-28-2014

XIU HUA WANG v. HOLDER A099 683 277 XIAOMIN ZHU, FENBIN CHEN v. HOLDER A089 009 010, A089 009 011 HUANG CHEN v. HOLDER A095 710 406 JIN FEI XIE v. HOLDER A088 526 019

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

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.

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 28^th day of October, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

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.

These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that affirmed decisions of Immigration Judges ("IJ") denying asylum and related relief. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought relief from removal based on claims that they fear persecution because they have had more than one child in violation of China's population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency's determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate their eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-68.

For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is 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