09-2090-ag
Wang v. Holder
BIA
A075 835 803
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 8 th day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 WENJU WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2090-ag
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY
20 GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel, Matthew A.
29 Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
1 Division, United States Department
2 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Wenju Wang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 30,
7 2009 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his
8 removal proceedings. In re Wenju Wang, No. A075 835 803
9 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity
10 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the
11 case.
12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
13 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
14 (2d Cir. 2006). An alien who has been ordered removed may
15 file one motion to reopen, but must do so within 90 days of
16 the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7).
17 Here, the BIA properly denied Wang’s motion to reopen as
18 untimely because he filed it almost six years after his
19 January 2003 final order of removal. See id.; 8 C.F.R.
20 § 1003.2(c)(2).
21 The 90-day filing deadline may be equitably tolled if
22 the alien can establish “changed country conditions arising
2
1 in the country of nationality . . . .” 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here,
3 however, the BIA reasonably concluded that recent activities
4 relating to China’s suppression of political dissent on the
5 internet did not constitute changed country conditions. See
6 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Furthermore, there is no merit
7 to Wang’s argument that he was not required to show changed
8 country conditions in order to excuse the untimely filing of
9 his motion to reopen. Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143,
10 156 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its
11 discretion in denying Wang’s motion.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
19 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
20
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
25
3