Case Information
*1 11-723, 13-3615 Chen, Huang 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 th day of August, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
DENNIS JACOBS,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
CUI PING CHEN, AKA ANNIE DUONG
v. SESSIONS, 11-723 A078 853 842
____________________________________
SHAO LAN HUANG v. SESSIONS, 13-3615 A095 758 711
_____________________________________
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.
These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that affirmed decisions of Immigration Judges (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
Petitioners, both natives and citizens of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 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. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao , we find no error in the agency’s determination that Petitioners failed to demonstrate their eligibility for relief. See 546 F.3d at 158-68; see also Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
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 these petitions are VACATED, and any pending stay motions in these petitions are DISMISSED as moot. Any pending requests for oral argument in *3 1 these petitions are DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 3 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk