
    ZENG QIN WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-5414-ag NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 27, 2010.
    H. Raymond Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; W. Daniel Shieh, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Zeng Qin Wang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a November 7, 2007, BIA order denying his motion to reopen. In re Zeng Qin Wang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2007). Wang’s motion to reopen was based on his claim that he fears persecution on account of both the birth of his U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family planning policy and his Catholic faith. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision to the extent it addressed his family planning claim. See id. at 168-72. Additionally, in his brief, Wang does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive determination that he failed to demonstrate a change in the Chinese government’s treatment of Catholics sufficient to excuse the untimely filing of his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

Moreover, contrary to Wang’s argument, the BIA did not err in denying his motion to reopen insofar as it was based on the fact that his wife’s motion to reopen had been granted because he did not demonstrate that his wife ultimately was granted any form of relief. Cf. Yan Fang Zhang v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 167, 173-74 (2d Cir.2006) recognizing that issuing inconsistent decisions regarding the ultimate eligibility for relief of a husband and wife presenting identical claims implicates the fundamental principle of justice that (“similarly situated individuals be treated similarly”).

For the foregoing reasons, this 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. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  