08-1238 (L)
Ou 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.


     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 24 th day of January, two thousand eleven.

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

FENG YAN CHEN v. HOLDER, 1                                         07-4870-ag
A097 150 142
_______________________________________

MEI JUAN ZHANG, AKA MEI JUAN ZHENG v.                              07-5589-ag
HOLDER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
A077 978 069
_______________________________________

WEN QIN OU v. HOLDER,                                       08-1238-ag (L);
A098 977 133                                               08-4314-ag (Con)
_______________________________________




        1
      Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted
as respondent where necessary.
09072010-1-20
_______________________________________

YANNA CHEN, AKA YAN NA CHEN,               08-3715-ag (L);
HAN TING LIN v. HOLDER,                   09-1991-ag (Con)
A099 564 538
A099 564 539
_______________________________________

ZHONG DI GAO v. HOLDER,                    08-4392-ag (L);
A099 427 368                              09-2098-ag (Con)
_______________________________________

KE LING ZHANG, SU PING ZHANG v.                 08-4469-ag
HOLDER,
A094 041 848
A098 689 330
_______________________________________

SU JIE HUANG v. HOLDER,                         08-5893-ag
A094 046 294
_______________________________________

LI ZHEN ZHU v. HOLDER,                          09-0456-ag
A099 568 254
_______________________________________

REN CHAI YANG, AKA RENCHAI YANG,                09-1661-ag
JING CHUN CHEN, AKA JINGCHUN CHEN,
AKA HAI RONG LIN, AKA HAIRONG LIN,
AKA HAI LIN v. HOLDER,
A099 930 937
A099 930 938
_______________________________________

CAIYUN WANG v. HOLDER,                          09-2115-ag
A096 267 343
_______________________________________

XIAO PING CHEN, YONG DI LI v.                   09-2287-ag
HOLDER,
A099 320 420
A099 320 421
_______________________________________




09072010-1-20                2
_______________________________________

TING YI LIN v. HOLDER,                             09-2849-ag
A075 780 271
_______________________________________

BI YUN HUANG, AKA BI YUN YUANG,                    09-2939-ag
AKA VI YUN HUANG v. HOLDER,
A094 813 601
_______________________________________

RU CHEN v. HOLDER,                                 09-2998-ag
A099 927 476
_______________________________________

XIAO ZHEN YANG v. HOLDER,                          09-3025-ag
A093 408 725
_______________________________________

BI HUI LIN v. HOLDER,                              09-3042-ag
A094 046 300
_______________________________________

YUN ZHI CHI v. HOLDER,                             09-3329-ag
A099 928 058
_______________________________________

LIN WU, LI GUANG DONG v. HOLDER,                   09-3397-ag
A078 736 061
A099 930 936
_______________________________________

MEI YING WU, YONG XIU CHEN v. HOLDER,              09-3459-ag
A093 397 371
A093 397 372
_______________________________________

RONG LI, BAO LU LIN v. HOLDER,                     09-3550-ag
A097 291 042
A099 592 334
________________________________________________



09072010-1-20                3
        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

either affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”)

denying         asylum   and   related   relief      or   reversing   the   IJ’s

decision         granting   relief.      Some   of    the   petitioners 2   also

challenge decisions of the BIA denying motions to remand or

reopen.         In those cases in which the BIA affirmed the IJ’s

decision denying relief, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s

opinions, see Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.

2008), and in those cases in which the BIA reversed the IJ’s

decision granting relief or denied a motion in the first

instance, we review only the decision of the BIA, see Yan Chen

v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).                 The applicable



        2
      The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder, Nos. 08-1238-ag (L),
08-4314-ag (Con); Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder, Nos. 08-3715-
ag (L), 09-1991-ag (Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag
(L), 09-2098-ag (Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Li
Zhen Zhu v. Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ren Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen
v. Holder, No. 09-1661-ag; Xiao Ping Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder,
No. 09-2287-ag; Ting Yi Lin v. Holder, No. 09-2849-ag; Bi Yun Huang
v. Holder, No. 09-2939-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder, No. 09-2998-ag; Xiao
Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag; Yun Zhi Chi v. Holder, No. 09-
3329-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder, No. 09-3397-ag; and Rong
Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3550-ag.

09072010-1-20                            4
standards of review are well-established.                 See Jian Hui Shao

v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

        Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought

relief          from   removal   based   on   their   claim   that    they   fear

persecution because they have had one or more children 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 decisions.                    See id.

at 158-72.             Although the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were

from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioners here,

some petitioners 3 are from Zhejiang Province.                 Regardless, as

with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence

they have submitted relating to Zhejiang Province either does

not     discuss        forced    sterilizations   or    references     isolated

incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly

situated to the petitioners.              See id. at 160-61, 171-72.

        Some of the petitioners 4 argue that the BIA failed to give

        3
      The petitioners in Ke Ling Zhang, Su Ping Zhang v. Holder,
No. 08-4469-ag; Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Ting Yi Lin
v. Holder, No. 09-2849-ag; and Ru Chen v. Holder, No. 09-2998-ag.
        4
      The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder, Nos. 08-1238-ag (L),
08-4314-ag (Con); Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder, Nos. 08-3715-
ag (L), 09-1991-ag (Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag
(L), 09-2098-ag (Con); Li Zhen Zhu v. Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ren
Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen v. Holder, No. 09-1661-ag; Xiao Ping
Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder, No. 09-2287-ag; Bi Yun Huang v. Holder,

09072010-1-20                             5
sufficient consideration to the statement of Jin Fu Chen, who

alleged that he suffered forced sterilization after his return

to China based on the two children born to his wife in Japan.

A prior panel of this Court has remanded a petition making a

similar claim so that Jin Fu Chen’s                 statement (which was

submitted to the BIA after a remand) could be considered by

the IJ.         See Zheng v. Holder, No. 07-3970-ag (2d Cir. Jan. 15,

2010).          Since the remand in Zheng, the BIA has repeatedly

concluded that Jin Fu Chen’s statement does not support a

claim of a well-founded fear of persecution.               Accordingly, it

is clear that further consideration of the statement in cases

in which the IJ or the BIA failed to consider it would not

change the result.           See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141,

150 (2d Cir. 2008).            Furthermore, the agency’s conclusion

concerning         the   probative   force   of   the   statement   did   not

involve any error of law.              Additionally, contrary to one

petitioner’s 5 argument, there was no error in the agency’s

decision declining to credit a similar statement from Mei Yun


No. 09-2939-ag; Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag; Bi Hui
Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3042-ag; Yun Zhi Chi v. Holder, No. 09-3329-
ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder, No. 09-3397-ag; Mei Ying Wu,
Yong Xiu Chen v. Holder, No. 09-3459-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v.
Holder, No. 09-3550-ag.
        5
      The petitioner in Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag
(L), 09-2098-ag (Con).

09072010-1-20                          6
Chen because it was a photocopy from an unrelated case.                             See

Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d

Cir. 2006).

        Some of the petitioners 6 also argue that the BIA erred by

improperly conducting de novo review of determinations made by

an IJ.          Many of them rely on a recent decision of the Third

Circuit,         ruling,         in   the    context    of   a   claim   under      the

Convention Against Torture, that the BIA must review for clear

error       findings        of    fact,     including    predictions     of    future

events,         but   may    review     de   novo   conclusions     of   law   as    to

whether the facts found satisfy a particular legal standard.

See Kaplun v. Attorney General, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010).

Their claims lack merit.                  The BIA has not reviewed de novo any

of the IJ’s factual findings.                  Instead, the BIA has concluded,

on de novo review, that the facts, as found by the IJ, do not

meet the legal standard of an objectively reasonable fear of



        6
      The petitioners in Feng Yan Chen v. Holder, No. 07-4870-ag;
Yanna Chen, Han Ting Lin v. Holder, Nos. 08-3715-ag (L), 09-1991-ag
(Con); Zhong Di Gao v. Holder, Nos. 08-4392-ag (L), 09-2098-ag
(Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Li Zhen Zhu v.
Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ren Chai Yang, Jing Chun Chen v. Holder,
No. 09-1661-ag; Caiyun Wang v. Holder, No. 09-2115-ag; Xiao Ping
Chen, Yong Di Li v. Holder, No. 09-2287-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder, No.
09-2998-ag; Bi Hui Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3042-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang
Dong v. Holder, No. 09-3397-ag; Mei Ying Wu, Yong Xiu Chen v.
Holder, No. 09-3459-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder, No. 09-
3550-ag.

09072010-1-20                                 7
persecution.          That approach is entirely consistent with the

applicable regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3).                      See Jian Hui

Shao, 546 F.3d at 162-63 (concluding that the BIA did not

erroneously          conduct   de    novo       review   of    the   IJ’s    factual

findings        by    making   “a     legal      determination       that,     while

[petitioners’]           credible      testimony         was     sufficient       to

demonstrate a genuine subjective fear of future persecution,

more was needed to demonstrate the objective reasonableness of

that fear”).

        In denying some of the petitioners’ 7 motions, the BIA

reasonably found that certain of the newly submitted documents

were previously obtainable, see INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94,

104-05 (1988), or declined to review evidence submitted for

the first time on appeal absent any argument as to why such

evidence merited further consideration on remand, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(d)(3)(iv); see also Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N.

Dec. 57, 74 (BIA 1984).             Regardless, the evidence submitted in

support of the petitioners’ motions was largely cumulative of


        7
      The petitioners in Wen Qin Ou v. Holder, Nos. 08-1238-ag (L),
08-4314-ag (Con); Su Jie Huang v. Holder, No. 08-5893-ag; Li Zhen
Zhu v. Holder, No. 09-0456-ag; Ting Yi Lin v. Holder, No. 09-2849-
ag; Bi Yun Huang v. Holder, No. 09-2939-ag; Ru Chen v. Holder, No.
09-2998-ag; Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag; Yun Zhi Chi
v. Holder, No. 09-3329-ag; Lin Wu, Li Guang Dong v. Holder, No. 09-
3397-ag; and Rong Li, Bao Lu Lin v. Holder, No. 09-3550-ag.

09072010-1-20                               8
the evidence in the record and not materially distinguishable

from the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao.

        Finally,          one    petitioner 8 argues    that      the   IJ   erred by

rejecting her request for an adjournment to submit evidence

demonstrating that her relatives had been forcibly sterilized.

We find that remand for the BIA to consider petitioner’s

argument would be futile because the IJ allowed her to testify

on the subject and her relatives were not similarly situated.

See Shunfu Li, 529 F.3d at 150; see also Jian Hui Shao, 546

F.3d at 160-61.

        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




        8
            The petitioner in Xiao Zhen Yang v. Holder, No. 09-3025-ag.

09072010-1-20                                9
