Shi Lu Liu Ni & Zhu v. Sessions

12-2776; 12-3505; 12-3672; 14-235 Shi; Lu; Liu; Ni & Zhu v. Sessions 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. _____________________________________ XIN YUN SHI v. SESSIONS, 12-2776 A088 775 992 ____________________________________ XIU JUAN LU v. SESSIONS, 12-3505 A097 753 315 ____________________________________ YAN YUN LIU v. SESSIONS, 12-3672 A087 441 542 ____________________________________ CHEN FENG NI, YU MING ZHU v. SESSIONS 14-235 A088 372 188/189 _____________________________________ 10242016-1-4 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 that reversed a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting asylum. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016). Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, applied for asylum and related relief based on claims that they fear persecution because they have violated China’s population control program with the birth of their children in the United States. The BIA recognized that it reviews an IJ’s factual findings for clear error, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003,1(d)(3)(1), and conclusions of law de novo, id. § 1003,1(d)(3)(ii). In each of the cases covered by this order, the BIA concluded that the IJ had erred in concluding that the petitioner had established an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because of 2 10242016-1-4 the birth of children in the United States.1 For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the BIA’s determination. See 546 F.3d at 158-72. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of Petitioners’ religious persecution claim in Chen Feng Ni, Yu Ming Zhu v. Lynch, 14-235. Petitioners did not appeal that ruling to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Grullon v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 107, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2008). For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stays of removal that the Court previously granted in ...

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