Zheng v. INS ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 5, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60473
Summary Calendar
CHEN ZHENG,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A71-984-803
-------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chen Zheng (Zheng) has filed a petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his appeal of an
immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reopen his immigration
proceedings. Zheng argues that his circumstances have changed
since his deportation order was issued in 1994 and that the
immigration judge erroneously denied relief pursuant to the
immigration regulations implementing the Convention Against
Torture.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
To succeed in his motion to reopen, Zheng was required to set
forth a prima facie case of his entitlement to relief. See
Pritchett v. I.N.S., 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993). Zheng does
not provide citations to or discuss the many applicable regulations
with which he was required to comply to obtain relief pursuant to
the Convention Against Torture, nor does he provide record
citations that indicate that he did in fact comply with the
considerable filing requirements set forth in the regulations.
Zheng also does not dispute the specific reasons underlying the
immigration judge’s conclusion that Zheng had failed to set forth
a prima facie case of his entitlement to relief. Therefore, Zheng
has failed to show that the immigration judge’s decision was an
abuse of discretion. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th
Cir. 2000).
Zheng’s reliance in his motion to reopen on In re X-G-W, 22 I.
& N. Dec. 71 (BIA 1998) also does not warrant a reversal of the BIA
decision, although the immigration judge did not specifically
address the applicability of this decision to Zheng’s case. In In
re X-G-W the BIA announced a policy of granting untimely motions to
reopen by certain applicants claiming eligibility for asylum based
on coercive population control policies. Though the policy
announced in In re X-G-W was subsequently reversed in In re G-C-L,
23 I. & N. Dec. 359, 359 (BIA 2002), Zheng’s motion to reopen was
arguably timely pursuant to In re X-G-W. However, even under the
policy announced in In re X-G-W, 22 I. & N. Dec. 71 at 4, the
2
movant seeking reopening of a prior deportation proceeding had to
meet certain prerequisites before reopening would be granted, and
Zheng has not met those prerequisites.
Accordingly, Zheng’s petition for review is DENIED.
3