[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14821 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 6, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A076-506-414
HUA QIAN ZHANG,
a.k.a. Hua Qin Jiang,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(June 6, 2011)
Before WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and KRAVITCH, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Hua Qian Zhang appeals the BIA’s order denying her motion to reopen her
removal proceedings for untimeliness. Zhang argues that the BIA abused its
discretion because her evidence showed changed country conditions in China.
Zhang acknowledges that the BIA properly considered the general conditions in
China for members of the China Democracy Party (“CDP”). She insists, however,
that because she showed the likelihood of persecution if she were to return to
China, the BIA should have granted her motion to reopen on the basis of changed
country conditions.
An alien subject to a final order of removal must move to reopen the
proceedings “within 90 days of the date on which the removal order became final.”
Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The
90-day time limit does not apply if the alien can demonstrate “changed country
conditions” in the country of nationality. Id. “An alien cannot circumvent the
requirement of changed country conditions by demonstrating only a change in her
personal circumstances.” Id.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhang’s motion to reopen
as untimely. Zhang filed her motion more than five years after the final order of
her removal became final, and she did not present evidence of changed country
conditions in China. Zhang’s order became final on August 6, 2004, and Zhang
2
joined the CDP in May 2009. The 2002 Country Report stated that the Chinese
government’s campaign against the CDP began in 1998, and by 2002, the
government was arresting CDP members and leaders. Political dissidents were
already being placed in ankang institutions, and there was surveillance of political
dissidents. The 2008 Country Report described similar conditions for CDP
members, including arrests, incarceration in ankang institutions, and surveillance
by the Chinese government. Dongxing Liu, the CDP Chairman, submitted a letter
stating that CDP members have been arrested since 1998 and that the Chinese
government declared the CDP a “hostile organization” in 2002.
Based on this evidence, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that
the country conditions had not changed in China since Zhang’s order of removal
became final. See id. Zhang’s recent membership in the CDP and the associated
greater risk of arrest is a changed personal circumstance, not a changed country
condition. See id. (explaining that while the birth of additional children would be
changed personal circumstances, the more stringent enforcement of China’s
one-child policy would be changed country conditions). Zhang has not shown that
the Chinese government treats CDP members any differently today than it did
when the BIA affirmed her order of removal in 2004. And the BIA did not
misconstrue or discount the evidence—the BIA expressly considered the 2002 and
3
2008 Country Reports, Liu’s letter, and the envelopes Zhang submitted.
Accordingly, we deny Zhang’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
4