11-3630-ag
Weng v. Holder
BIA
A077 994 008
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 11th day of May, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 Jin Pan Weng,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-3630-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
28 Assistant Director; Sheri R. Glaser,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, Civil Division, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Jin Pan Weng, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of an August 18, 2011, order
7 of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal
8 proceedings. In re Jin Pan Weng, No. A077 994 008 (B.I.A.
9 Aug. 18, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
10 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
13 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
14 by denying Weng’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-
15 barred, as it was his second motion to reopen and he filed
16 it more than seven years after his final order of removal.
17 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
18 Although the time and numerical limits on motions to
19 reopen may be excused when the movant demonstrates changed
20 country conditions, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), the BIA
21 reasonably concluded that Weng did not demonstrate changed
22 conditions in this case.
2
1 Weng argues that the record compels the conclusion that
2 the persecution of Chinese Christians has intensified since
3 his 2002 merits hearing. The record includes evidence that
4 some Christians were persecuted when Weng filed his motion
5 to reopen. However, we defer to the BIA’s conclusion that
6 this persecution constituted a continuation of China’s
7 ongoing policies rather than changed conditions. See Shao
8 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (“We do not
9 ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a
10 task largely within the discretion of the agency.”); see
11 also Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 257 (BIA 2007)
12 (explaining that an “incremental or incidental” change in a
13 country’s policies does not constitute changed country
14 conditions for purposes of motions to reopen).
15 The BIA further noted that the repression of Christians
16 varies by locality in China. It reasonably concluded that
17 the letters Weng submitted, from three friends who were
18 arrested in Weng’s hometown for attending house churches in
19 2010, did not establish changed conditions in that town
20 because there was no evidence about conditions in that
21 hometown at the time of his 2002 merits hearing. See id. at
22 253 (“In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion
3
1 to reopen demonstrates a material change in country
2 conditions that would justify reopening, we compare the
3 evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to
4 those that existed at the time of the merits hearing
5 below.”).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this
8 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
9 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
10 34.1(b).
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
4