08-4239-ag
Weng v. Holder
BIA
A79 586 283
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 26 th day of January, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
MEI RONG WENG,
Petitioner,
v. 08-4239-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY
GENERAL, *
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, N.Y.
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically
substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as the
respondent in this case.
FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Stefanie Notarino Hennes, Trial
Attorney, United States Department
of Justice, Civil Division, Office
of Immigration Litigation,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Petitioner Mei Rong Weng, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the July 28,
2008 order of the BIA denying her March 2008 motion to
reopen. In re Mei Rong Weng, No. A79 586 283 (B.I.A. July
28, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history of the 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).
Because it is undisputed that Weng’s March 2008 motion
to reopen was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s April
2004 decision, the BIA properly observed that her motion
would be denied as untimely, unless she established that she
was newly eligible for asylum based on changed circumstances
2
arising in China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii).
Contrary to Weng’s arguments, the BIA acknowledged the
evidence she submitted in support of her motion and her
corresponding assertion that conditions in China had changed
since her January 2003 hearing before the IJ. The BIA
reasonably observed, however, that Weng’s motion offered
only a discussion of conditions in China at the time she
filed her motion, and failed to articulate how that evidence
demonstrated a change in conditions that was relevant to her
claims for relief. Before this Court, Weng offers no
persuasive argument that the BIA erred in concluding that
while the record evidence showed that China continued to
have a poor human rights record with respect to its family
planning policy, its enforcement of that policy had not
worsened in any material respect, nor had conditions changed
in a way that gave rise to a new asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Accordingly, we find that the BIA’s
denial of Weng’s motion as untimely was not an abuse of
discretion. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.
Finally, because we lack jurisdiction to do so, we
decline to consider Weng’s argument that the BIA erred in
failing to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen her
removal proceedings. See id. at 518.
3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
The 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(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4