         10-3734
         Ling 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 23rd day of July, 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       QIU FENG ZHENG, AKA QUI FENG ZHENG,
15       AKA MA NAN HSUEN v. BUREAU OF
16       CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES,                          10-1849-ag
17       A077 309 471
18       ____________________________________
19
20       CHUN GUO CHEN v. HOLDER,                                     10-2010-ag
21       A072 564 910
22       ____________________________________
23
24       MAOLI DONG v. HOLDER,                                        10-2072-ag
25       A095 377 535
26       ____________________________________
27
28       LI BIN ZHAO v. HOLDER,                                       10-2364-ag
29       A077 023 117
30       ____________________________________
31

         02272012-1-10
 1   BI-FENG LIU v. HOLDER,                           10-2867-ag
 2   A073 132 497
 3   ____________________________________
 4
 5   YUFANG QIU, BAI XIANG LIN
 6   v. HOLDER,                                       10-2933-ag
 7   A096 248 506
 8   A079 141 366
 9   ____________________________________
10
11   TAN FENG LING v. HOLDER,                         10-3734-ag
12   A077 322 844
13   ____________________________________
14
15   YONG DA CHEN, AKA YONGDA CHEN,
16   AKA LANGDA CHEN v. HOLDER,                       10-3821-ag
17   A073 161 895
18   ____________________________________
19
20   MAO ZHOU LIN, AKA
21   MAO ZAI LIN v. HOLDER,                           10-3993-ag
22   A077 309 112
23   ____________________________________
24
25   XIU MEI ZHENG v. HOLDER,                         10-4123-ag
26   A095 365 126
27   ____________________________________
28
29           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

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

31   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for

32   review are DENIED.

33           Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the

34   BIA denying a motion to reopen.     The applicable standards of

35   review are well-established.     See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

36   546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).


     02272012-1-10                   2
 1           Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed

 2   motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear

 3   persecution because they have had one or more children in

 4   violation of China’s population control program.     For

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

 6   Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.

 7   See id. at 158-72.     Moreover, the BIA did not err in

 8   declining to credit the petitioners’ unauthenticated

 9   evidence in light of the agency’s underlying adverse

10   credibility determinations.     See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,

11   500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

12           In Maoli Dong v. Holder, No. 10-2072-ag, (3) we are

13   without jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s argument

14   that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings as a

15   matter of discretion.     See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515,

16   518 (2d Cir. 2006).     In Li Bin Zhao v. Holder, No. 10-2364-

17   ag, (4) there is no merit to the petitioner’s argument that

18   motions to reopen seeking relief under the Convention

19   Against Torture (“CAT”) are excused from the applicable time

20   and numerical limitations.     See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)

21   (providing the time and numerical limitations applicable to

22   motions to reopen); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2) (excusing


     02272012-1-10                   3
 1   the time and numerical limitations for filing a motion to

 2   reopen to seek CAT relief only for aliens whose removal

 3   orders became final prior to March 22, 1999 and who moved to

 4   reopen proceedings before June 21, 1999)).

 5           For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review

 6   are DENIED.     As we have completed our review, any stay of

 7   removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions

 8   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

 9   these petitions is DISMISSED as moot.     Any pending request

10   for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance

11   with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and

12   Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

13                                  FOR THE COURT:
14                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15




     02272012-1-10                   4
