Chen v. Sessions

10-2361 (L), Chen v. Sessions BIA Brennan, IJ A088 377 910 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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ YAN CHEN, Petitioner, 10-2361(L), v. 11-299(Con) NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New Jersey. FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Government’s motion for summary denial in 11-299(Con) is GRANTED and the petitions for review are DENIED. Petitioner Yan Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of (1) a May 18, 2010, decision of the BIA that reversed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) grant of asylum, In re Yan Chen, No. A088 377 910 (B.I.A. May 18, 2010), rev’g No. A088 377 910 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 14, 2009), and (2) a December 29, 2010, decision of the BIA that denied her motion to reopen, In re Yan Chen, No. A088 377 910 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016). Chen applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, and later moved to reopen removal proceedings, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her two children in the United States purportedly in violation of 2 10242016-9 China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 156-73, we find no error in the BIA’s determination on de novo review that Chen failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of persecution based on the birth of her children in the United States. For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion for summary denial in 11-299(Con) is GRANTED ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals