Wu v. Sessions

10-2619 (L) Wu v. Sessions BIA Schoppert, IJ A093 394 028/029 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. _____________________________________ A. LE WU, SHENG JIAN YE, Petitioners, 10-2619(L), v. 11-176(Con) NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New Jersey. FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director; James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 06152016-10 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 petitions for review are DENIED. Petitioners A. Le Wu and Sheng Jian Ye, natives and citizens of China, seek review of (1) a June 16, 2010, decision of the BIA that reversed the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting asylum, In re A. Le Wu, Sheng Jian Ye, Nos. A093 394 028/029 (B.I.A. June 16, 2010), rev’g Nos. A093 394 028/029 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 17, 2009), and (2) a December 17, 2010, decision of the BIA that denied Wu’s motion to reopen, In re A. Le Wu, No. A093 394 028 (B.I.A. Dec. 17, 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). Petitioners applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and Wu later moved to reopen removal proceedings, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of their children in the United 2 10242016-10 States purportedly in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the BIA’s determination on de novo review that Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of establishing an objectively reasonable well founded fear of persecution. See 546 F.3d at 156-73. The letters from Petitioners’ relative and friend, claiming to ...

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