Shui Qim Zou v. Holder

14-189 Zou v. Holder BIA A098 432 363 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 Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 2nd day of March, two thousand fifteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHUI QIM ZOU, AKA SHUI QIN ZOU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-189 17 NAC 18 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; E. Tayo Otunla, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, Civil 2 Division, United States Department 3 of Justice, Washington D.C. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Shui Qim Zou, a native and citizen of China, 10 seeks review of the BIA’s January 10, 2014, decision denying 11 her motion to reopen. In re Shui Qim Zou, No. A098 432 363 12 (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 14 case. 15 The applicable standards of review are well 16 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 17 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). An applicant may file a motion to 18 reopen within 90 days of the date on which a final 19 administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding 20 sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(I); 8 21 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is undisputed that Zou’s motion 22 to reopen was untimely because it was filed in November 23 2013, more than four years after her June 2009 final removal 24 order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 2 1 § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time limitation does not apply 2 when a motion “is based on changed country conditions 3 arising in the country of nationality or the country to 4 which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material 5 and was not available and would not have been discovered or 6 presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 8 Contrary to Zou’s argument, there is no indication that 9 BIA applied an incorrect standard to her motion to reopen 10 when it reasonably found that she failed to demonstrate 11 materially changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. 12 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 13 168-69. While the BIA did not address each piece of 14 evidence individually, it need not “expressly parse or 15 refute on the record each individual argument or piece of 16 evidence offered by the petitioner.” Zhi Yun Gao v. 17 Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 18 marks and citation omitted); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. 19 Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 336 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) 20 (presuming that the agency “has taken into account all of 21 the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly 22 suggests otherwise”). While, as the BIA acknowledged, the 3 1 evidence provided that China continued to arrest and harass 2 underground church leaders and members, it also provided 3 that underground church members were permitted to worship 4 unharmed in some parts of the country. One report lists 5 incidents of religious persecution by province; it reflects 6 no reports of abuse in Zou’s home province of Fujian for 7 2011. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 8 conclusion that the treatment of underground church members 9 had not materially changed in China between the time of 10 Zou’s hearing and her motion to reopen, and the BIA did not 11 abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen as 12 untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)©; see also Jian Hui 13 Shao, 546 F.3d at 168-69. 14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 22 FOR THE COURT: 23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 24 25 4