Youjian Zou v. Attorney General of the United States , 535 F. App'x 97 ( 2013 )

BLD-120 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1806
___________
YOUJIAN ZOU,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Immigration Judge: Honorable Eugene Pugliese
(Agency No. A089-198-110)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 14, 2013
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 20, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Youjian Zou, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China proceeding pro
se, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen. For the following reasons, we will dismiss his petition for review as
moot.
Zou entered the United States in September 2007 on a visitor visa. Zou
overstayed his visa and in July 2008 the Department of Homeland Security issued a
notice to appear, charging Zou with removal. During removal proceedings Zou admitted
that he overstayed his visa and that removability was justified but he filed applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention
Against Torture. Zou’s basis for relief was fear that officials in China would forcibly
sterilize him in order to enforce birth limits and that he may face repercussions for
leaving China and violating birth control policies. In June 2009, an Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) denied Zou’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal because he
concluded that Zou was not credible and did not satisfy the burdens for relief.
Zou appealed the IJ’s denial of his applications. In July 2011, the BIA dismissed
the appeal after concluding that the IJ’s finding, that Zou’s testimony was incredible, was
not clearly erroneous. In October 2011, Zou filed a motion to reopen. In his motion to
reopen, Zou claimed that he recently married a U.S. citizen and that she had filed an
immediate relative visa petition on his behalf. Zou argued that his case should be
reopened and remanded to the IJ so that he could apply for adjustment of status based on
the pending visa petition. The Department of Homeland Security opposed the motion on
the basis of the finding that Zou was not credible before the IJ. The Board found that
Zou’s motion did not include evidence establishing that his marriage was bona fide, as
2
required by In re Velarde-Pachecho, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002), and denied his
motion.
In March 2012, Zou filed a timely pro se petition for review with this Court. In
his brief in support of his petition for review, Zou argued that his motion to reopen met
the basic filing requirements set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), and that because United
States Citizenship and Immigrations Services (“USCIS”) had accepted his immediate
relative visa and scheduled an interview on his adjustment of status application he should
have the opportunity to proceed with an application for adjustment of status before the IJ.
The Attorney General moved to hold the petition for review in abeyance pending
USCIS’s adjudication of Zou’s application for adjustment of status or until 120 days after
his interview with USCIS. The Clerk granted the Attorney General’s motion to stay.
In January 2013, the Attorney General submitted a status report indicating that
USCIS had revoked Zou’s previously accepted immediate relative visa petition after
concluding that his marriage was not bona fide but rather had been entered into for the
purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United States. Subsequently, the
Attorney General filed a motion requesting dismissal because USCIS’s decision rendered
the case moot. The Attorney General noted that Zou’s wife had thirty days to appeal
USCIS’s revocation but did not do so; as a result it is final. Zou has not responded to the
Attorney General’s motion.
In his petition for review, Zou argues that the pending immediate relative visa
petition filed by his wife constitutes changed circumstances and that the BIA should have
3
granted his motion to reopen so that he could present the evidence of his new status to the
IJ. However, adjudication in federal court requires that “an actual controversy . . . be
extant at all stage of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for
Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 442
U.S. 395, 401 (1975); see also Church of Scientology of Cal. v United States, 506 U.S. 9,
12 (1992) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending appeal that makes it impossible
for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must
be dismissed.”). Since the filing of Zou’s petition for review, USCIS revoked Zou’s
wife’s immediate relative visa petition. Zou’s request, that we remand to the IJ so he can
present evidence of his pending immediate relative visa, would no longer be “effectual
relief,” because, due to the revocation, Zou cannot show evidence of changed status to
the IJ. In sum, because Zou is no longer eligible for an adjustment of status on the basis
of the reason proffered in his motion to reopen, his claim that the BIA erred in failing to
consider whether such an adjustment warrants reopening is no longer a live controversy
for us to review. See Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979).
For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the Attorney General’s motion and
dismiss the petition for review.
4