Ben Hong Zhu v. Lynch

13-3276
Zhu v. Lynch
BIA
A099 934 642
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 6th day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BEN HONG ZHU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-3276
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.*
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Ben Hong Zhu, pro se, Houston,
24 Texas.
25
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
3 Director; Brendan P. Hogan,
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Ben Hong Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s
13 Republic of China, seeks review of an August 2, 2013,
14 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re
15 Ben Hong Zhu, No. A099 934 642 (B.I.A. Aug. 2, 2013). We
16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
17 and procedural history of this case.
18 Because Zhu petitions for review of the denial of a
19 motion to reconsider, but not from the underlying decision
20 for which reconsideration is sought, we review only the
21 denial of his motion to reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v.
22 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001).
23 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Zhu
24 failed to specify any error of law or fact in its prior
25 decision denying his motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C.
26 § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Jian Hui
2
1 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008).
2 Zhu’s sole argument is that he demonstrated changed
3 conditions in China based on letters from his wife and
4 village committee stating that the Chinese government seeks
5 to punish him for proselytizing. However, in view of the
6 agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination, the
7 BIA reasonably rejected Zhu’s assertion of changed
8 conditions because that assertion was supported solely by
9 evidence that depended upon Zhu’s veracity: an
10 unauthenticated and unsigned committee letter and an unsworn
11 letter purportedly from his wife. See Qin Wen Zheng v.
12 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007).
13 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
14 denying Zhu’s motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C.
15 § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Jian Hui
16 Shao, 546 F.3d at 173.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED.
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
3