08-5372-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
A098 971 281
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 25 th day of August, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________
LI JUAN ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v. 08-5372-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, *
Respondent.
_________________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
04262010-1
FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; John W. Blakeley,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Judith R.
O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Civil
Division, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Li Juan Zheng, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the October 8,
2008, order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider and
reopen. In re Li Juan Zheng, No. A098 971 281 (B.I.A. Oct. 8,
2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
facts and procedural history of the case.
In denying Zheng’s motion to reconsider, the BIA did not
err in finding that she failed to identify any legal or
factual error in its reversal of the IJ’s decision granting
asylum. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d
Cir. 2006). Indeed, rather than asserting any error in the
BIA’s prior decision, Zheng’s motion merely restated the
arguments she had made on appeal to the BIA. See id. (holding
that the BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion
04262010-1 -2-
to reconsider when the motion merely repeats arguments that
the BIA has previously rejected); Jie Chen v. Gonzales, 436
F.3d 76, 78-79 & n.5 (2d Cir. 2006).
To the extent Zheng submitted new evidence, the BIA
properly construed the motion as a motion to reopen, and
denied it. Although she challenges the BIA’s decision in this
respect, her arguments are foreclosed by this Court’s decision
in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008).
Contrary to Zheng’s argument, the record does not support
Zheng’s contention that the BIA ignored any material evidence
that she submitted. See id. at 169 (recognizing that the
Court has rejected the notion that the agency must “expressly
parse or refute on the record each individual argument or
piece of evidence offered by the petitioner”); see also Xiao
Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d
Cir. 2006) (presuming that the agency “has taken into account
all of the evidence before [it], unless the record
compellingly suggests otherwise”). Indeed, while the BIA
noted that Zheng submitted letters from her physician and the
WuHang town family planning office, it reasonably gave those
documents limited weight because they were unauthenticated
photocopies. See id. at 342 (finding that the weight afforded
04262010-1 -3-
to the applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies
largely within the discretion of the agency); see Matter of H-
L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 & n.5 (BIA 2010)
(holding that unsigned, unauthenticated documents, from a
“Street Resident Committee” and “Villager Committee,” that
fail to identify the authors, are entitled to minimal weight).
Additionally, contrary to Zheng’s argument that the BIA
applied the wrong standard in assessing her timely motion to
reopen, the BIA did not err in finding that she failed to
demonstrate “new and material facts” sufficient to warrant
reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2; see also INS v. Abudu, 485
U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
04262010-1 -4-