11-2043-ag
Wang v. Holder
BIA
A070 888 859
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 28th day of March, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 REENA RAGGI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 ZHEN KAI WANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-2043-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Eric Y. Zheng, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Blair T. O’Connor,
28 Assistant Director; Juria L. Jones,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Zhen Kai Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 12, 2011, decision
7 of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Zhen Kai
8 Wang, No. A070 888 859 (B.I.A. May 12, 2011). We assume the
9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
10 procedural history of this case.
11 The applicable standards of review are well-
12 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169
13 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien may file only one motion to reopen
14 and must do so within 90 days of the agency’s final
15 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R.
16 § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Wang’s motion was indisputably
17 untimely and number-barred because it was filed more than
18 ten years after the agency’s final order of removal and
19 because it was his third motion to reopen, see 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i), there are no time or numerical
21 limitations for filing a motion to reopen if it is “based on
22 changed country conditions arising in the country of
23 nationality or the country to which removal has been
2
1 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available
2 and would not have been discovered or presented at the
3 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see
4 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
5 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that
6 Wang’s conversion to Christianity constituted a change in
7 his personal circumstances, rather than a change in country
8 conditions sufficient to excuse the untimely and number-
9 barred filing of his motion to reopen. See Li Yong Zheng v.
10 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 129, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 Moreover, the BIA did not err in finding that Wang failed to
12 demonstrate a change in country conditions since the time of
13 his previous proceedings because he failed to provide
14 baseline evidence concerning conditions in China at the time
15 of his 1998 hearing or address the fact that the 1998 U.S.
16 Department of State report, “China: Profile of Asylum Claims
17 and Country Conditions,” which was submitted at the time of
18 his hearing, indicated that the Chinese government
19 repressed, harassed, and persecuted unauthorized and
20 unregistered religious groups at that time. See 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
22 Matter of S-Y-G, 24 I & N Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007)
3
1 (“compar[ing] the evidence of country conditions submitted
2 with the motion to those that existed at the time of the
3 merits hearing below.”). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse
4 its discretion in denying Wang’s motion to reopen as
5 untimely and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),
6 (C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
7 We further find no error in the BIA’s denial of Wang’s
8 motion on the grounds that he had not submitted an asylum
9 application as required by regulation. See 8 C.F.R.
10 § 1003.2(c)(1).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this
13 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
15 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
4