13-3378
Zeng v. Lynch
BIA
A077 993 929
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 July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 CHANG FAN ZENG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 13-3378
18 NAC
19
20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,1
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael
2 Brown, PC, New York, New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
5 General; Janice K. Redfern, Senior
6 Litigation Counsel; William C.
7 Minick, Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, Civil
9 Division, United States Department
10 of Justice, Washington D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Petitioner Chang Fan Zeng, a native and citizen of
17 China, seeks review of an August 12, 2013 decision of the
18 BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Chang Fan Zeng, No.
19 A077 993 929 (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’
20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
21 in this case.
22 “We review the denial of motions to reopen immigration
23 proceedings for abuse of discretion.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448
24 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Aliens seeking to reopen
25 proceedings may move to reopen no later than 90 days after
26 the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C.
27 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). That time
28 limitation does not apply if the motion is “based on changed
2
1 country conditions arising in the country of nationality . .
2 . if such evidence is material and was not available and
3 would not have been discovered or presented at the previous
4 hearing.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
5 Zeng’s motion to reopen was untimely by five years.
6 Thus, he needed to present reliable evidence of changed
7 country conditions to support his claim that the Chinese
8 government will persecute him for following Falun Gong.
9 Zeng submitted a village committee notice that threatened
10 him with severe punishment for practicing Falun Gong in the
11 United States, and a letter from his father in China about
12 his receipt of that notice. The BIA reasonably gave little
13 weight to those documents. While it may not have been
14 reasonable for the BIA to expect additional authenticating
15 evidence for the village committee notice, see Cao He Lin v.
16 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 404–05 (2d Cir. 2005),
17 the BIA did not abuse its discretion in discrediting it
18 because it was tainted by the previous adverse credibility
19 finding against Zeng, see Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500
20 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007). That finding likewise
21 undermined the letter from Zeng’s father, which also was not
22 notarized, appeared to be prepared for the purpose of
3
1 litigation, and was written by an interested witness who
2 would not be subject to cross-examination. See Xiao Ji Chen
3 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006)
4 (holding that the weight afforded to the applicant’s
5 evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the
6 discretion of the agency); In re H–L–H & Z–Y–Z–, 25 I. & N.
7 Dec. 209, 214-15 (BIA 2010), overruled in part on other
8 grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.
9 2012).
10 The government seeks summary denial of the petition.
11 We have considered the merits brief submitted by Zeng, and
12 we treat the government’s motion as a response to it. For
13 the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED and
14 the government’s motion is DENIED as moot. As we have
15 completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
16 previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and Zeng’s
17 pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot.
18 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
19 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
20 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
4