12-2901
Wang v. Holder
BIA
A094 813 829
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 Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 25th day of November, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
GUO MAN WANG,
Petitioner,
v. 12-2901
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: David J. Rodkin, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Jennifer P.
Levings, Senior Litigation
Counsel,Jennifer R. Khouri, Trial
Attorney, 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 Guo Man Wang, a native and citizen of China,
seeks review of a June 26, 2012 decision of the BIA denying
his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Guo Man
Wang, No. A094 813 829 (B.I.A. June 26, 2012). We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
(2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An alien seeking to reopen
proceedings is required to file a motion to reopen no later
than 90 days after the date on which the final
administrative decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Wang’s
motion to reopen, filed in October 2011, was untimely
because the BIA issued a final order of removal in April
2009.
Wang contends, however, that his recent membership in
the Democratic Party of China (“DPC”), and the Chinese
government’s awareness of his political activities in the
2
United States, constitute materially changed conditions
excusing his untimely motion. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
Contrary to Wang’s contention, the BIA did not abuse
its discretion in finding that he had not established
changed country conditions. Nothing in the United States
Department of State reports compel the conclusion that the
treatment of DPC members has worsened since 2007. See
8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(B) (the BIA’s factual findings are
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary”); see also Siewe v.
Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there
are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s
choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”) (citation
omitted). Although Wang contends that a recent report shows
that political activists returning to China from abroad are
imprisoned, he did not credibly establish that the Chinese
government was aware of his political activities in this
country or would consider him to be a political activist.
Notably, the BIA found that the only evidence
supporting this claim – a statement from Wang’s wife – was
unreliable because it was unsworn and largely repeated the
3
assertions made in a previous statement submitted in support
of Wang’s 2006 asylum application. Given the underlying
adverse credibility determination, the BIA’s determination
that the statement should be given little weight was not an
abuse of discretion. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500
F.3d 143, 147-49 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that the BIA did
not abuse its discretion in declining to credit documents
submitted with a motion to reopen where alien had been found
not credible in the underlying asylum hearing); see also
Matter of H–L–H & Z–Y–Z–, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A.
2010) (giving diminished weight to letters from relatives
that were written by interested witnesses not subject to
cross-examination), abrogated on other grounds by Hui Lin
Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012).
Moreover, the BIA reasonably found that Wang’s
membership in the DPC constituted changed personal
circumstances, which are insufficient to excuse the untimely
filing of his motion to reopen. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
437 F.3d 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006) (making clear that the
limitations on motions to reopen may not be suspended
because of a “self-induced change in personal circumstances”
that is “entirely of [the applicant’s] own making after
4
being ordered to leave the United States”); see also Yuen
Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008) (concluding
that the system does not permit aliens who have been ordered
removed “to disregard [those] orders and remain in the
United States long enough to change their personal
circumstances (e.g., by having children or practicing a
persecuted religion) and initiate new proceedings via a new
asylum application”).
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
5