Narrative Opinion Summary
Xiao Yong Chen, a Chinese national, sought review of a March 26, 2008, order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied his motion to reopen his case. Chen's motion was based on his fear of persecution due to the birth of his U.S. citizen children, which he claimed violated China's family planning policy. The court found no error in the BIA's decision, referencing similar reasoning used in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA also determined that Chen did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture related to his illegal departure from China, citing Mu Xiang Lin v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005). Consequently, Chen's petition for review was denied, any previously granted stay of removal was vacated, and any pending motions for a stay were dismissed as moot. A request for oral argument was also denied in accordance with applicable procedural rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion to Reopen Immigration Casesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the BIA's decision to deny Chen's motion to reopen his immigration case due to a lack of evidence supporting his claim of fear of persecution.
Reasoning: Xiao Yong Chen, a Chinese national, sought review of a March 26, 2008, order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied his motion to reopen his case.
Denial of Petition for Review and Stay of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Chen's petition for review and vacated any previously granted stay of removal, rendering any pending motions for a stay moot.
Reasoning: Consequently, Chen's petition for review was denied, any previously granted stay of removal was vacated, and any pending motions for a stay were dismissed as moot.
Denial of Request for Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the request for oral argument in accordance with applicable procedural rules.
Reasoning: A request for oral argument was also denied in accordance with applicable procedural rules.
Fear of Persecution and Family Planning Policysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Chen's claim of fear of persecution due to the birth of his U.S. citizen children violating China's family planning policy was not found to warrant reopening his case.
Reasoning: Chen's motion was based on his fear of persecution due to the birth of his U.S. citizen children, which he claimed violated China's family planning policy.
Prima Facie Eligibility for Relief under the Convention Against Torturesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA concluded that Chen failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture concerning his illegal departure from China.
Reasoning: The BIA also determined that Chen did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture related to his illegal departure from China, citing Mu Xiang Lin v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005).