12-1275 Tang v. Whitaker BIA Elstein, IJ A088 006 843

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 18th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNIS JACOBS, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 YAN FEI TANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 12-1275 18 NAC 19 20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 29 Kelting, Assistant Director; Lori

06152016-10 1 B. Warlick, Trial Attorney, Office 2 of Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Yan Fei Tang, a native and citizen of the

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2012,

12 BIA decision that affirmed the December 23, 2009, decision of

13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of

14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

15 (“CAT”). In re Yan Fei Tang, No. A088 006 843 (B.I.A. Mar.

16 8, 2012), aff’g No. A088 006 843 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec.

17 23, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

19 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s

20 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”

21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

(2d

22 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well

23 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

,

24 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

2 1 Tang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

2 relief, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of

3 her children in the United States in violation of China’s

4 population control program. For largely the same reasons as

5 set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s

6 determination that she failed to satisfy her burden for

7 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See

at

8 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales,

(2d

9 Cir. 2006). The agency did not err in affording limited

10 weight to a family planning notice given that it was unsigned

11 and unauthenticated by any means and given country conditions

12 evidence that such documents are subject to widespread

13 fabrication. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471

(2d Cir. 2006) (providing that the weight

15 afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration

16 proceedings is largely within the agency’s discretion); Qin

17 Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007)

18 (concluding that the BIA does not abuse its discretion in

19 declining to credit an unauthenticated notice from a local

20 government office in China that contradicts country

21 conditions evidence and characterizes such a notice as

22 “questionable on its face”).

3 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

3 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

4 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

5 is DISMISSED as moot.

6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 8 Clerk of Court

4