07-5078-ag (L); 09-0927-ag (Con)
Ke 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 25 th day of August, two thousand ten.

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

SHUN TING KE v. HOLDER, 1                                   07-5078-ag (L);
A070 866 801                                               09-0927-ag (Con)
_____________________________

GUI HUA ZHANG v. HOLDER,                                           08-0248-ag
A077 658 067
_____________________________

MEI CHEN CHEN v. BCIS,                                             08-0371-ag
A077 977 892


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

04262010-2-20
_____________________________
_____________________________

FANG DONG, JIN HUA ZHENG
v. HOLDER,                              08-0508-ag
A073 044 947
A029 794 284
_____________________________

SEN YE, TENG YI CHEN
v. HOLDER,                              08-0704-ag
A078 217 878
A076 498 660
_____________________________

ZENG HE WENG v. HOLDER,                 08-0705-ag
A073 560 845
_____________________________

ZHI LIN v. HOLDER,                      08-4143-ag
A070 903 711
_____________________________

JIAN KONG NI v. HOLDER,                 08-4339-ag
A076 506 544
_____________________________

MEIQIAN GAO, aka MEI QIN
GAO v. HOLDER,                          08-5611-ag
A078 471 773
_____________________________

XIAO CHON HU, YUE ZHEN YE
v. HOLDER,                              08-5674-ag
A072 475 139
A072 475 140
_____________________________

XIUZHEN LIN, aka ZIU ZHEN
LIN, aka XIU ZHEN LIN
v. HOLDER,                         09-0024-ag (L),
A076 111 864                      09-2570-ag (Con)

04262010-2-20               -2-
_____________________________
_____________________________

XIAO LE WANG aka XIOALE
WANG v. HOLDER,                                      09-0652-ag
A073 657 562
_____________________________

FANG GUO ZENG, XINZHEN
ZHENG v. HOLDER,                                     09-0762-ag
A074 588 464
A097 149 843
_____________________________

QIU QIN ZOU v. HOLDER,                               09-0925-ag
A070 893 811
_____________________________

XIU FENG ZHENG v. HOLDER,                            09-1066-ag
A078 015 622
_____________________________

XAI MEI LIU v. HOLDER,                               09-1134-ag
A077 050 836
_____________________________

YAN QING TANG v. HOLDER,                             09-2263-ag
A072 183 173
_____________________________

JING GUO CHEN, aka JIN GUO
CHEN v. HOLDER,                                      09-2746-ag
A072 094 147
_____________________________

XIANG QING LIN, aka PETER
YI CHIN LIN, aka XIANGQIN
LIN v. HOLDER,                                       09-4611-ag
A077 997 813
_____________________________

        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of


04262010-2-20                  -3-
several 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

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

motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facie

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

§ 1003.2(c).           We review the denial of a motion to reopen for

abuse of discretion.                Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d

Cir. 2006).

        Petitioners, all natives and 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. 2          For largely the same reasons this Court set

forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d

Cir. 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.                         To the

extent that some of the petitioners argue that they were



        2
      To the extent that Petitioner in 08-0705-ag also challenges the
IJ’s underlying decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT relief, we lack jurisdiction to review those
arguments.   See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001).

04262010-2-20                                -4-
eligible to file successive asylum applications based solely

on their changed personal circumstances, such arguments are

foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). 3

        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




        3
      Contrary to the arguments asserted by petitioners in Docket Numbers
07-5078-ag(L), 09-0927-ag(Con), 08-0248-ag, 09-0024-ag(L), 09-2570-
ag(Con), 09-0652-ag, 09-0762-ag, 09-1066-ag, and 09-4611-ag, we find no
error in the BIA’s refusal to credit petitioners’ unauthenticated
evidence   in   light  of   the   agency’s  prior   adverse   credibility
determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d
Cir. 2007).   Further, although petitioners in Docket Numbers 07-5078-
ag(L), 09-0927(Con), 09-0024-ag(L), 09-2570-ag(Con), and 09-1066-ag argue
that the BIA erred by relying on U.S. Department of State Country Reports
that contained mistranslations, that argument is without merit.

04262010-2-20                                -5-
