ZHENG v. BIA, 390 Fed.Appx. 48 (2nd Cir. 2010)

YING ZHENG v. BIA, A077 023 905. Qui Hang Qui Holder,[1] A077 353 466. Hui Jin Chen v. Holder, A078 016 089. Jin-Fang Chen v. Holder, A072 556 694.

Page 49

Yong Jie Yang v. Holder, A070 650 836. Chun Ying Chen v. Holder, A070 909 888, A029 821 928. Xiu Min Wang v. Holder, A076 628 043. Minj Liang v. Holder, A077 341 361. Ai Ling Zhang v. Holder, AO95 918 591. Li Fang Chen v. Holder, A095 306 350. Ren Xiong Zheng v. Holder, A073 617 998. Su Zhong chen v. Holder, A073 623 017. Yun Chen v. Holder, A073 776 130. Jin Yun Qiu v. Holder, A098 478 591. Jian Jin Shi v. Holder, A076 515 199. Jin Xiu Zou v. Holder, A078 289 453.Yan Rong Liu v. HOLDER, A079 453 133. Qisung Li v. Holder, A079 101 960. Li Juan Wang v. Holder, A076 506 562. Guo Ming Ye v. Holder, A097 385 451.

Nos. 06-5148-ag, 07-3877-ag, 07-4659-ag, 07-4878-ag, 07-5434-ag, 07-5555-ag, 07-5659-ag, 08-0030-ag, 08-0107-ag, 08-0413-ag, 08-0595-ag, 08-0684-ag, 08-0872-ag, 08-1166-ag, 08-1411-ag, 08-1435-ag, 08-1633-ag, 08-1698-ag, 08-2027-ag, 08-4788-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
August 25, 2010.

[1] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H.Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B.Mukasey as respondent in this case.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

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.

Page 50

Gary J. Yerman, Esq., Law Office of Gary Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

P. Michael Truman, Esq., Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER
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.[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, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (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 Man 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 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).

[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, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90
(1988) (holding that a movant’s failure to establish hi 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).

Page 51