Chen v. Holder ( 2011 )

10-4816-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
A079 682 751
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 30th day of November, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 FAN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-4816-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffery E. Baron, Baron & Shelkin,
24 P.C., New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
28 Director; Lindsay B. Glauner, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, Civil Division, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Fan Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
6 of China, seeks review of an October 25, 2010, order of the
7 BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Fan Chen, No. A079
8 682 751 (B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2010). We assume the parties’
9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
10 of the case.
11 We have reviewed the agency’s denial of Chen’s motion
12 to reopen for abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d
13 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). As Chen does not
14 challenge the BIA’s findings regarding his family planning
15 claims or the denial of sua sponte reopening, we address
16 only his arguments concerning changed country conditions.
17 See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545
18 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 Because Chen’s motion to reopen was untimely, he was
20 required to establish changed country conditions. See
21 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). He presented the agency with
22 evidence suggesting that religious activity was more
2
1 vigorously suppressed in some regions of China surrounding
2 the Olympic Games. However, the agency reasonably
3 determined that this evidence did not establish a material
4 change in conditions for Chen, because it showed that
5 persecution varied region by region and did not show changes
6 in Chen’s home province, Fujian. See Poradisova v.
7 Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir. 2005).
8 The agency also reasonably determined that Chen’s
9 great-aunt’s letter, describing a raid on a house church and
10 the destruction of a church in Chen’s hometown, did not
11 establish a change in the persecution of Christians as Chen
12 provided no evidence about prior conditions in the town to
13 establish that these events constituted a material change
14 since his 2003 merits hearing. See Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I.
15 & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007).
16 Chen argues that the BIA abused its discretion by
17 failing to draw a link between his evidence about his home
18 town and his wider evidence of an increase in the
19 suppression of Christians. However, the BIA was not
20 required to draw any such inference. See Siewe v. Gonzales,
21 480 F.3d 160, 167-68 (2d Cir. 2007). Thus, because the BIA
22 reasonably concluded that Chen did not establish a change in
3
1 country conditions, it did not abuse its discretion by
2 denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
4