06-5148-ag
Zheng v. BIA




                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.


     At a stated term of the United             States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the             Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl             Street, in the City of
New York, on the 25 th day of August,            two thousand ten.

PRESENT:
         DENNIS JACOBS,
              Chief Judge,
         JON O. NEWMAN,
         PIERRE N. LEVAL,
              Circuit Judges.
____________________________

YING ZHENG v. BIA,                                                 06-5148-ag
A077 023 905
____________________________

QUI HANG QUI v. HOLDER, 1                                          07-3877-ag
A077 353 466
____________________________

HUI JIN CHEN v. HOLDER,                                            07-4659-ag
A078 016 089


        1
      Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is automatically substituted as respondent
where necessary.

041210-1-20
____________________________
___________________________

JIN-FANG CHEN v. HOLDER,             07-4878-ag
A072 556 694
___________________________

YONG JIE YANG v. HOLDER,             07-5434-ag
A070 650 836
___________________________

CHUN YING CHEN v. HOLDER,            07-5555-ag
A070 909 888, A029 821 928
___________________________

XIU MIN WANG v. HOLDER,              07-5659-ag
A076 628 043
___________________________

MINJ LIANG v. HOLDER,                08-0030-ag
A077 341 361
___________________________

AI LING ZHANG v. HOLDER,             08-0107-ag
A095 918 591
___________________________

LI FANG CHEN v. HOLDER,              08-0413-ag
A095 306 350
___________________________

REN XIONG ZHENG v. HOLDER,           08-0595-ag
A073 617 998
___________________________

SU ZHONG CHEN v. HOLDER,             08-0684-ag
A073 623 017
___________________________

YUN CHEN v. HOLDER,                  08-0872-ag
A073 776 130
___________________________

JIN YUN QIU v. HOLDER,               08-1166-ag
A098 478 591

                               -2-
___________________________
___________________________

JIAN JIN SHI v. HOLDER,                                               08-1411-ag
A076 515 199
___________________________

JIN XIU ZOU v. HOLDER,                                                08-1435-ag
A078 289 453
___________________________

YAN RONG LIU v. HOLDER,                                               08-1633-ag
A079 453 133
___________________________

QISUNG LI v. HOLDER,                                                  08-1698-ag
A079 101 960
___________________________

LI JUAN WANG v. HOLDER,                                               08-2027-ag
A076 506 562
___________________________

GUO MING YE v. HOLDER,                                                08-4788-ag
A097 385 451
___________________________


        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby

ORDERED,          ADJUDGED,    AND   DECREED,     that    these    petitions   for

review are DENIED.

        Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA

denying       a    motion     to   reopen    based   on   either    the   movant’s

failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient

to avoid the time and numerical limits applicable to such



041210-1-20                                 -3-
motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facie

eligibility for the underlying relief sought. 2                         See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c).             We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen

for     abuse       of    discretion,     mindful       of   the    Supreme      Court’s

admonition          that     such    motions      are    “disfavored.”           Ali    v.

Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v.

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)).

        Petitioners,         all     citizens     of    China,     filed   motions      to

reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because

they had one or more children in the United States.                                    For

largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui

Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no

error         in   the    BIA’s    decisions. 3        See   id.   at   168-72.        Any

arguments          that     the     petitioners        are   eligible      to    file    a

successive          asylum        application     based      on    changed      personal



        2
      Although the BIA erred in Yong Jie Yang v. Holder, 07-5434-ag, by
requiring petitioner to demonstrate changed country conditions despite
the timely filing of his motion to reopen, we decline to remand because
the BIA reasonably found, in the alternative, that petitioner failed to
demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for relief. See Xiao Ji Chen v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 (2d Cir. 2006)(holding that
remand is not required when “it is clear that the agency would adhere to
its prior decision in the absence of error”); see also INS v. Abudu, 485
U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (holding that a movant’s failure to establish his
prima facie eligibility for relief is a proper ground on which the agency
may deny a motion to reopen).
        3
      We also find no error in the BIA’s decision in Jian Jin Shi v.
Holder, 08-1411-ag, declining to credit petitioner’s unauthenticated
evidence in light of the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See
Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

041210-1-20                                -4-
circumstances are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).                         We lack

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination declining to

reopen proceedings sua sponte.                   See Ali, 448 F.3d at 518.

        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




041210-1-20                                -5-
