U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2010

Xiu Ying Zhou v. Holder

Xiu Ying Zhou v. Holder
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided July 29, 2010 · Jacobs, Newman, Leval
388 F. App'x 53

Xiu Ying Zhou v. Holder

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitioners, all Chinese citizens, challenges a decision of the BIA denying their applications for relief based on the birth of one or more children in the United States. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying each application. 2 See id. at 168-72. Contrary to the arguments of several of the petitioners, the BIA does not conduct impermissible de novo review in determining that evidence fails to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of forced sterilization. See id. at 162-63; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d)(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).

2

. To the extent some of the petitioners asserted that they were entitled to relief based on their alleged illegal departure from China, we find no error in the agency’s denial of those claims. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that the agency did not err in denying Yan Chen’s motion for a continuance in docket number 09-0226-ag, because the BIA decision that she cited did not represent a change in law. See Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551-52 (2d Cir. 2006). We decline to review petitioner's unexhausted argument, in Xiao Yun Liu v. Holder, Docket No. 08-0249-ag, that we should remand the proceedings to the BIA because the IJ’s decision was omitted from the record before the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n. 1, 122 (2d Cir. 2007).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.