
    Jan WU, aka Seok Hee Joo, aka Jian Yu v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Qin Zhou Yong, aka Chin Kang Chua, aka Yung Chou, Ren Le Qian v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Mei Chang Sun v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 10-2805-ag, 10-4232-ag, 10-4809-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 2, 2012.
    
      Theodore N. Cox, Esq., Law Office of Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Jan Wu, et al.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, OIL, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Eric H. Holder, Jr.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON 0. NEWMAN, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear persecution because they have had one or more children in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. See id. at 158-72. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, the petitioners here are from Zhejiang Province. However, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence they have submitted relating to Zhejiang Province is deficient either because it does not discuss forced sterilizations or because it references isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated to the petitioners. See id. at 160-61,171-72.

The BIA may have erred in rejecting the family planning notice submitted in Jan Wu v. Holder, No. 10-2805-ag, (31) solely based on petitioner’s failure to authenticate that document pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir.2005). However, remand to the BIA for consideration of the notice would be futile because the notice was not material as it did not demonstrate changed country conditions and it merely referenced the family planning policy’s mandatory sterilization requirement without any indication that such sterilizations are performed by force. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir.2008) (finding that remand is futile when the Court can confidently “predict that the agency would reach the same decision absent the errors that were made” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 165, 172.

For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  