
    MING SHENG ZHU v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ben Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. En Chen, aka Yin Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Sai Ying Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Zu Hua Liu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Nai Yu Jiang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Wang Zhang, aka Wang Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Chang Long Uo, aka Chang-Long Ou v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Wan Ping Lin, Yan Qing Zhu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Qing You Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 10-4432-ag, 10-4718-ag, 10-4742-ag, 10-4997-ag, 10-5151-ag, 10-5154-ag, 11-443-ag, 11-464-ag, 11-1638-ag, 11-1961-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. •
    July 23, 2012.
    Ming Sheng Zhu, New York, NY, pro se.
    Russell John Verby, Trial, OIL, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. 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.

Although the BIA may err in rejecting family planning notices, such as those submitted in some of these cases, solely based on a failure to authenticate 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), it does not abuse its discretion in according diminished weight to notices that have not been authenticated by any means, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir.2006). Regardless, remand to the BIA for consideration of the family planning notices would be futile because the notices 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).  