Mei Zhen Chen v. Holder

08-5495-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
A079 083 988
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 20 th day of May, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 MEI ZHEN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-5495-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Sheema Chaudhry, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Civil Division; Thomas B.
27 Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel;
28 Jeffrey R. Meyer, Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 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 Mei Zhen Chen, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the October 29,

7 2008, order of the BIA, which denied her motion to reopen. In

8 re Mei Zhen Chen, No. A079 083 988 (B.I.A. Oct. 29, 2008). We

9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

10 procedural history of the case.

11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

12 abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d

13 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Here, the BIA did not abuse its

14 discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen as untimely

15 because she filed it over five years after the BIA issued its

16 final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

17 To the extent Chen argues that the Chinese government’s

18 awareness of her violation of the family planning policy, her

19 practice of Christianity and baptism in the United States, and

20 her anti-government sentiments constitute changed country

21 conditions, that argument lacks merit. The BIA reasonably

22 viewed the motion as based on a change in personal

2
1 circumstances, which is not an exception to the applicable

2 time limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Wei

3 Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006); see also

4 Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting

5 that a contrary rule would give aliens ordered removed an

6 incentive “to disregard [those] orders and remain in the

7 United States long enough to change their personal

8 circumstances (e.g., by having children or practicing a

9 persecuted religion) and initiate new proceedings via a new

10 asylum application.”).

11 Moreover, contrary to Chen’s argument, a reasonable

12 factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that the BIA

13 failed to consider her evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

14 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t

15 of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 336-37 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006). Nor did

16 the BIA err in declining to give weight to that evidence,

17 including a purported village committee notice. See Xiao Ji

18 Chen, 471 F.3d at 342. The BIA’s finding in this respect was

19 particularly appropriate given its prior adverse credibility

20 determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143,

21 147 (2d Cir. 2007).

3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal

3 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

4 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

5 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

6 in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule

7 of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

8 34.1(b).

9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12

4