Chun Yong Chen v. Holder

11-1538-ag Chen v. Holder BIA A073 575 989 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 9th day of February, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 CHUN YONG CHEN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 11-1538-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, New 25 York. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Andrew N. 30 O’Malley, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, Civil 1 Division, United States Department 2 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Chun Yong Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 9 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 25, 2011, order 10 of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Chun Yong 11 Chen, No. A073 575 989 (B.I.A. Mar. 25, 2011). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history of the case. 14 We have reviewed the agency’s denial of Chen’s motion 15 to reopen for abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 16 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 17 Because Chen’s motion to reopen was untimely, he was 18 required to establish changed country conditions. See 8 19 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Chen presented the agency with 20 evidence describing the persecution of Christians in China 21 from 2008 to 2010, but he did not present the BIA with any 22 evidence about conditions for Christians in China in 1996, 23 the time of his original merits hearing. In evaluating 24 evidence of changed country conditions, the BIA “compare[s] 2 1 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion 2 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing 3 below.” Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 4 2007). Accordingly, because Chen did not in 2010 present 5 the BIA with any evidence about conditions in China in 1996, 6 the BIA reasonably concluded that he failed to demonstrate a 7 change in conditions that would justify reopening. See id.; 8 accord Moosa v. Holder, 644 F.3d 380, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2011) 9 (upholding BIA’s finding that applicant had not established 10 changed country conditions because she did not present 11 evidence about conditions in Pakistan as they had existed at 12 the time of her 2001 merits hearing to provide a “baseline 13 for comparison” and thus did not establish that there had 14 been a change in the influence of the Taliban since that 15 time). Because the BIA reasonably concluded that Chen did 16 not establish a change in country conditions, it did not 17 abuse its discretion by denying his motion to reopen as 18 untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion 21 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 22 FOR THE COURT: 23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 24 25 3