14-552
Tang v. Whitaker
BIA
A072 340 105
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 TO 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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 14th day of December, two thousand
5 eighteen.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JON O. NEWMAN,
9 DENNIS JACOBS,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 FEI GUO TANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 14-552
18 NAC
19
20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Vlad Kuzmin, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
1
04122018-4
1 Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation
2 Counsel; Lynda A. Do, Attorney,
3 Office of Immigration Litigation,
4 United States Department of
5 Justice, Washington, DC.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Fei Guo Tang, a native and citizen of the
12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 24,
13 2014, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen as
14 untimely. In re Fei Guo Tang, No. A072 340 105 (B.I.A. Jan.
15 24, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The
17 applicable standards of review are well established. See
18 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 Tang moved to reopen his deportation proceedings to
20 present new evidence in support of his claimed fear of
21 persecution in China based on the births of his U.S. citizen
22 children in violation of China’s population control program.
23 It is undisputed that Tang’s motion to reopen was untimely
24 filed more than 15 years after his in absentia deportation
2
04122018-4
1 order became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i);
2 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
3 The time limitation does not apply if the motion is to
4 reopen proceedings in order to apply for asylum “based on
5 changed country conditions arising in the country of
6 nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered,
7 if such evidence is material and was not available and would
8 not have been discovered or presented at the previous
9 proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also
10 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). For largely the same reasons
11 set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s
12 determination that Tang failed to demonstrate a material
13 change in country conditions as needed to excuse the untimely
14 filing of his motion. See 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169-73 (noting
15 that since at least 1998 enforcement of family planning policy
16 has been generally lax in Fujian Province with isolated
17 reports of force being used).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED.
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
22 Clerk of Court
3
04122018-4