Jian Rong Chen v. Holder

11-2807-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
A078 015 839
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 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIAN RONG CHEN, AKA FANGLI SHANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-2807-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jian Rong Chen, Pro se.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
27 Assistant Director; Edward J. Duffy,
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, Civil Division, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Jian Rong Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 29, 2011, order of
7 the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Jian Rong Chen,
8 No. A078 015 839 (B.I.A. June 15, 2011). We assume the
9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
10 procedural history of this case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s
13 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v.
14 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v.
15 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). There is no dispute
16 that Chen’s 2010 motion to reopen was untimely because her
17 administrative order of removal became final in 2004. See
18 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). To
19 the extent Chen contends that the time limitation does not
20 apply to her motion to reopen because her motion is “based
21 on changed circumstances arising in” China, 8 U.S.C.
22 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), her
23 arguments are unpersuasive.
2
1 Chen asserts that she joined the Chinese Coalition for
2 Citizens Rights (“CCCR”) after being ordered removed from
3 the United States, and Chinese officials have contacted her
4 mother about her activities in the United States. However,
5 as the BIA found, her membership in the CCCR was a change in
6 personal circumstances, not a change in country conditions.
7 See Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008).
8 Moreover, the record supports the BIA’s determination that
9 Chen has not established changed conditions arising in China
10 because she failed to provide any objective evidence showing
11 that China’s policies had changed since the time of her
12 hearing. See Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 247, 253 (BIA
13 2007); see also Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 292, 294 (2d
14 Cir. 2006). To the extent Chen challenges the BIA’s finding
15 that the black and white copy of the unsworn,
16 unauthenticated statement from her mother included with her
17 motion to reopen was not persuasive, we will defer to the
18 BIA’s conclusion. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
19 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); Qin Wen Zheng v.
20 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2007). Therefore,
21 given the lack of evidence of any change in China,
22 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chen
3
1 failed to demonstrate an exception to the time limitation,
2 and we find no abuse of discretion in its denial of Chen’s
3 motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i),(ii); Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
4