10-5266-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
A070 901 662
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 17th day of February, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROGER J. MINER,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12 JIN WU ZHENG,
13 Petitioner,
14
15 v. 10-5266-ag
16 NAC
17 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
18 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
19 Respondent.
20 _____________________________________
21
22 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, Law Office of Michael
23 Brown, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Kiley L. Kane,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 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 Jin Wu Zheng, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of a December 15, 2010, decision of the BIA denying
7 his motion to reopen. In re Jin Wu Zheng, No. A070 901 662
8 (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity
9 with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
10 case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
13 Cir. 2006)(per curiam). Here, the BIA did not abuse its
14 discretion by denying Zheng’s motion to reopen as untimely
15 and number-barred, as it was his second motion to reopen and
16 he filed it nearly eight years after his final order of
17 removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(2006); 8 C.F.R.
18 § 1003.2(c)(2)(2011).
19 Although the time limits on motions to reopen may be
20 excused when the movant demonstrates changed country
21 conditions, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)(2006), the BIA
22 reasonably concluded that only Zheng’s personal
23 circumstances had changed, as his claim was based on the
24 fact that he began practicing Falun Gong in 2009. See Wei
2
1 Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006)
2 (finding that the time limitation on a motion to reopen may
3 not be suspended for a “self-induced change in personal
4 circumstances” that is “entirely of [the applicant’s] own
5 making after being ordered to leave the United States”).
6 Moreover, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
7 determination that Zheng failed to establish that conditions
8 in China had changed materially. Zheng’s evidence of
9 conditions in China, which consisted of a 2007 U.S.
10 Department of State report, indicates that persecution of
11 Falun Gong practitioners has been constant and ongoing since
12 the time of his hearing in 1999. See Jian Hui Shao v.
13 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing the
14 BIA’s factual findings regarding changed country conditions
15 under the substantial evidence standard); see also 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (requiring “material” and previously
17 unavailable evidence of “changed country conditions arising
18 in the country of nationality”).
19 The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining
20 to credit Zheng’s unauthenticated village notice regarding
21 his Falun Gong practice because the agency previously had
22 determined that Zheng was not credible. See Qin Wen Zheng v.
23 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-48 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that
24 the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to credit
3
1 unauthenticated documents submitted with a motion to reopen
2 where alien had been found not credible in the underlying
3 asylum hearing); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160,
4 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false document or a single
5 instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the
6 petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated
7 or unauthenticated evidence.”).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is
11 VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
4