-
10-4192-ag Zheng v. Holder BIA A070 651 174 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 5th day of January, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PETER W. HALL, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _________________________________________ 12 13 ZI QIANG ZHENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 10-4192-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _________________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zi Qiang Zheng, pro se, New York, NY 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Mary Jane Candaux, 27 Assistant Director; Laura M.L. 28 Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Petitioner Zi Qiang Zheng, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the September 7 15, 2010, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. 8 In re Zi Qiang Zheng, No. A070 651 174 (B.I.A. Sept. 15, 9 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 10 underlying facts and procedural history of the case. 11 Because Zheng has petitioned for review from the denial 12 of his 2010 motion, we review only the BIA’s 2010 decision 13 and do not address Zheng’s family planning claims, as they 14 were raised in a prior motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1252(d)(1); Foster v. INS,
376 F.3d 75, 77 (2d Cir. 2004); 16 Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
265 F.3d 83, 89-90 17 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the BIA’s denial of Zheng’s 2010 18 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 19
448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). A petitioner may file one 20 motion to reopen, which, generally, must be filed no later 21 than 90 days after the date on which the final 22 administrative decision has been rendered in the proceedings 2 1 sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 2 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Zheng’s 3 2010 motion was untimely and number-barred, as the 4 immigration court’s final order was issued in 1999, and the 5 2010 motion was Zheng’s second motion to reopen. See 8 6 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 7 However, the time and number limitations do not apply to a 8 motion to reopen if it is “based on changed circumstances 9 arising in the country of nationality or in the country to 10 which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is 11 material and was not available and could not have been 12 discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. 13 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 14 Here, the BIA reasonably concluded that Zheng failed to 15 establish changed country conditions. As the BIA found, 16 Zheng failed to provide any evidence of the treatment of 17 Christians at the time of his 1999 hearing. See Matter of 18 S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). Although 19 Zheng now contends that the BIA abused its discretion by not 20 “addressing all the factors relevant to his claim” and by 21 not considering country conditions evidence he submitted, he 22 does not indicate the evidence to which he is referring. 3 1 Moreover, contrary to Zheng’s argument, the record does not 2 demonstrate that the BIA failed to consider any of the 3 evidence he submitted. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
4 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, because Zheng 5 failed to establish changed country conditions in China 6 sufficient to excuse the untimely filing of his motion to 7 reopen, his assertion that he would be able to demonstrate 8 his eligibility for the underlying relief is unavailing. 9 Contrary to Zheng’s contention, the BIA did not abuse its 10 discretion in declining to consider Zheng’s successive 11 asylum application, as a showing of changed country 12 conditions was a prerequisite to reopening. As the BIA 13 found, Zheng’s change in personal circumstances, which 14 materially affected his eligibility for asylum, did not 15 exempt him from having to demonstrate changed country 16 conditions. See Yuen Jin v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 143, 152 (2d 17 Cir. 2008); Matter of C-W-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 346, 351 18 (B.I.A. 2007). 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 5
Document Info
Docket Number: 10-4192-ag
Citation Numbers: 447 F. App'x 263
Judges: Hall, Livingston, Chin
Filed Date: 1/5/2012
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024