Zhu Lin Hou v. Holder , 459 F. App'x 42 ( 2012 )

10-2719-ag
Hou v. Holder
BIA
A070 671 371
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR
AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 8th day of February, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 DENNY CHIN,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 ZHU LIN HOU,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 10-2719-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Peter S. Gordon, Forest Hills, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Emily Anne Radford,
29 Assistant Director; Jesse Lloyd
1 Busen, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Zhu Lin Hou, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the June 11,
12 2010, order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re
13 Zhu Lin Hou, No. A070 671 371 (B.I.A. June 11, 2010). We
14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
15 and procedural history of the case.
16 The BIA’s denial of Hou’s motion to reopen as untimely
17 was not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d
18 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). An alien may file one
19 motion to reopen, generally no later than 90 days after the
20 final administrative decision in the proceedings sought to
21 be reopened. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
22 § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Hou’s 2009 motion
23 was untimely because the agency issued the final
24 administrative order in 2002. See 8 U.S.C.
25 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time
2
1 limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen if it is
2 “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of
3 nationality or in the country to which deportation has been
4 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available
5 and could not have been discovered or presented at the
6 previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
7 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). As the BIA concluded, Hou’s
8 practice of Falun Gong in the United States is not changed
9 circumstances arising in China. Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437
10 F.3d 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006); Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538
11 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008).
12 Hou undertook to show an increase in China’s
13 persecution of Falun Gong practitioners since 2008. The
14 BIA’s determination that the evidence failed to demonstrate
15 changed circumstances in China is supported by substantial
16 evidence. While there is evidence that repression of Falun
17 Gong practitioners increased during the 2008 Olympics, there
18 is also evidence that the repression has been constant since
19 the time of Hou’s hearing in 2001, and Hou submitted no
20 evidence that any increase in repression of Falun Gong
21 practitioners continued after the 2008 Olympics and into
22 2009. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir.
3
1 2007) (“Where there are two permissible views of the
2 evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be
3 clearly erroneous.”); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
4 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing the BIA’s factual
5 findings regarding changed country conditions under the
6 substantial evidence standard).
7 The evidence Hou submitted was therefore insufficient
8 to establish a change in country conditions. Her recent
9 practice of Falun Gong amounts at most to a change in
10 personal circumstances. The BIA did not abuse its
11 discretion in denying her untimely motion to reopen. See 8
12 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i),(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
13 (3). Hou argues that the BIA ignored certain evidence, but
14 the BIA explicitly addressed her background material in its
15 decision. The BIA was not required to cite each piece of
16 evidence because substantial evidence supports its findings.
17 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338
18 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006).
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
5