Zhen-Yang Huang v. Holder

11-278 BIA
Huang v. Holder A078 951 471
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 27th day of September, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 ZHEN-YANG HUANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-278
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Eric Y. Zheng, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
28 Assistant Director; Judith R.
29 O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office
30 of Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Zhen-Yang Huang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the January 4,
7 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re
8 Zhen-Yang Huang, No. A078 951 471 (B.I.A. Jan. 4, 2011). We
9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
10 and procedural history of the case.
11 The BIA’s denial of Huang’s motion to reopen as
12 untimely was not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA,
13 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). An alien may
14 file one motion to reopen, generally no later than 90 days
15 after the date on which the final administrative decision
16 was rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
17 § 1003.2(c)(2). Huang’s 2010 motion was untimely because
18 the final administrative order was issued in 2005. See 8
19 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The
20 time limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen if it
21 is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of
22 nationality or in the country to which deportation has been
23 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available
24 and could not have been discovered or presented at the
2
1 previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8
2 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). However, Huang failed to
3 establish a material change in country conditions.
4 Huang argues that he will be subject to the Chinese
5 government’s human rights abuses against Christians who
6 attend unregistered churches because of his 2010 conversion
7 to Christianity and his assertion that he would attend an
8 unregistered church if he were removed to China. Huang
9 alleges that such abuses have increased since his 2003
10 merits hearing. However, the evidence did not show that
11 there is a reasonable possibility that, out of the 40 to 60
12 million members of unregistered churches in China, the
13 Chinese government would likely become aware that he also is
14 a member. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143
15 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
16 Because the evidence Huang submitted was insufficient
17 to establish a change in country conditions material to
18 Huang, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding
19 that he failed to show a ground for an exception to the
20 filing deadline, and in consequently denying his motion to
21 reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii);
22 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3).
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
4