YAN FEI TANG v. WHITAKER (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yan Fei Tang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2012, BIA decision that affirmed the December 23, 2009, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yan Fei Tang, No. A088 006 843 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2012), aff’g No. A088 006 843 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 23, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

Tang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her children in the United States in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that she failed to satisfy her burden for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See id. at 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). The agency did not err in affording limited weight to a family planning notice given that it was unsigned and unauthenticated by any means and given country conditions evidence that such documents are subject to widespread fabrication. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (providing that the weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings is largely within the agency’s discretion); Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 148-49 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that the BIA does not abuse its discretion in declining to credit an unauthenticated notice from a local government office in China that contradicts country conditions evidence and characterizes such a notice as “questionable on its face”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.