13-2663 Chen v. Holder BIA Cheng, IJ A087 448 209 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 3rd day of November, two thousand fourteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MEIXIANG CHEN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 13-2663 17 NAC 18 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York. 27 28

08152014-B3-5 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Leslie McKay, Assistant 3 Direcor; Ilissa M. Gould, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration 5 Litigation, United States Department 6 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

11 is DENIED.

12 Meixiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks

13 review of a June 13, 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming

14 the July 18, 2012, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary

15 Cheng, denying his application for asylum, withholding of

16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

17 (“CAT”). In re Meixiang Chen, No. A087 448 209 (B.I.A. June

18 13, 2013), aff’g No. A087 448 209 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July

19 18, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

20 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

22 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

23 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

24 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The

25 applicable standards of review are well established. See

26

08152014-B3-5 2 1

(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2009).

3 Chen applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and

4 CAT relief based, in part, on his claim that he fears

5 persecution because he has had more than one child in

6 violation of China’s population control program. For

7 largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui

8 Shao,

, we find no error in the agency’s

9 determination that Chen failed to demonstrate his

10 eligibility for relief on that ground. See

.

11 We also find no error in the agency’s determination

12 that Chen failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief

13 based on his religion. The evidence Chen submitted did not

14 demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely

15 to become aware of, his religious practice. See Hongsheng

16 Leng v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008).

17 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is

18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

08152014-B3-5 3 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5

08152014-B3-5 4