Shui Qim Zou v. Holder

14-189
Zou v. Holder
BIA
A098 432 363
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 2nd day of March, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SHUI QIM ZOU, AKA SHUI QIN ZOU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-189
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; E. Tayo Otunla,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Shui Qim Zou, a native and citizen of China,
10 seeks review of the BIA’s January 10, 2014, decision denying
11 her motion to reopen. In re Shui Qim Zou, No. A098 432 363
12 (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity
13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
14 case.
15 The applicable standards of review are well
16 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
17 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). An applicant may file a motion to
18 reopen within 90 days of the date on which a final
19 administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding
20 sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(I); 8
21 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is undisputed that Zou’s motion
22 to reopen was untimely because it was filed in November
23 2013, more than four years after her June 2009 final removal
24 order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
2
1 § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time limitation does not apply
2 when a motion “is based on changed country conditions
3 arising in the country of nationality or the country to
4 which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material
5 and was not available and would not have been discovered or
6 presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
8 Contrary to Zou’s argument, there is no indication that
9 BIA applied an incorrect standard to her motion to reopen
10 when it reasonably found that she failed to demonstrate
11 materially changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C.
12 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at
13 168-69. While the BIA did not address each piece of
14 evidence individually, it need not “expressly parse or
15 refute on the record each individual argument or piece of
16 evidence offered by the petitioner.” Zhi Yun Gao v.
17 Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
18 marks and citation omitted); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
19 Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 336 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006)
20 (presuming that the agency “has taken into account all of
21 the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly
22 suggests otherwise”). While, as the BIA acknowledged, the
3
1 evidence provided that China continued to arrest and harass
2 underground church leaders and members, it also provided
3 that underground church members were permitted to worship
4 unharmed in some parts of the country. One report lists
5 incidents of religious persecution by province; it reflects
6 no reports of abuse in Zou’s home province of Fujian for
7 2011. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
8 conclusion that the treatment of underground church members
9 had not materially changed in China between the time of
10 Zou’s hearing and her motion to reopen, and the BIA did not
11 abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen as
12 untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)©; see also Jian Hui
13 Shao, 546 F.3d at 168-69.
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
25
4