Shou Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Case: 09-60701 Document: 00511184858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 26, 2010
No. 09-60701
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

SHOU GUO WANG,

Petitioner

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A-095-207-356

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shou Guo Wang is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China.
Wang petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. This court applies a highly
deferential abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen. Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2005).
Wang asserts that he should be allowed to file a motion to reopen, despite
the fact that he has exceeded the number limitations for such motions, because

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 09-60701 Document: 00511184858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2010
No. 09-60701

of changed country conditions in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The filing limitations on motions to reopen do not apply
if, inter alia, the motion to reopen is “based on changed circumstances arising in
the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been
ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have
been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);
§ 1003.2(c)(2); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005).
Wang has failed to show that if he returns to China that he will be subject
to persecution because of changed country conditions. See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. See
Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 632. The petition is therefore DENIED.