Ming Hui Zhou v. Holder , 361 F. App'x 296 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •         09-2489-ag
    Zhou v. Holder
    BIA
    A098 997 640
    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 22 nd day of January, two thousand ten.
    5
    6      PRESENT:
    7               JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
    8               JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
    9               DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    10                        Circuit Judges.
    11      _________________________________________
    12
    13      MING HUI ZHOU,
    14               Petitioner,
    15
    16                          v.                                  09-2489-ag
    17                                                              NAC
    18      ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    19      ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    20               Respondent.
    21      _________________________________________
    22
    23      FOR PETITIONER:                Nathan Weill, New York, New York.
    24
    25      FOR RESPONDENT:                Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    26                                     General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
    27                                     Director; Kristina R. Sracic, Trial
    28                                     Attorney, Office of Immigration
    29                                     Litigation, United States Department
    30                                     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      Petitioner Ming Hui Zhou, a native and citizen of the
    6    People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the May 29, 2009
    7    order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen.   In re Ming
    8    Hui Zhou, No. A098 997 640 (B.I.A. May 29, 2009).   We assume
    9    the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
    10   procedural history of the 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), mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that
    14   motions to reopen are “disfavored,” see Maghradze v.
    15   Gonzales, 
    462 F.3d 150
    , 154 (2d Cir. 2006).   Here, the BIA
    16   did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhou’s motion to
    17   reopen based on his failure to establish his prima facie
    18   eligibility for relief.   See INS v. Abudu, 
    485 U.S. 94
    , 104
    19   (1988).
    20     Although Zhou argues that the BIA erred in failing to
    21   consider whether the article he submitted established his
    2
    1    prima facie eligibility for relief based on the theory of
    2    imputed political opinion, it is not apparent how the
    3    article indicates that the government imputed any particular
    4    political opinion to him or other protesters.    Moreover, as
    5    the BIA found, the article concerned events in a province
    6    other than Zhou’s own, making it of little probative value.
    7    See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings
    8    shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that
    9    evidence sought to be offered is material and was not
    10   available and could not have been discovered or presented at
    11   the former hearing.”).
    12     The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to
    13   consider the statement of Zhou’s friend because that
    14   statement was not previously unavailable.    See 
    id.
       Indeed,
    15   the statement describes events that occurred prior to Zhou’s
    16   hearing, including some events at which Zhou was allegedly
    17   present.
    18     For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    19   DENIED.    As we have completed our review, any stay of
    20   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    21   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    3
    1   this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
    2   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    3   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    4   Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    5                                 FOR THE COURT:
    6                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    7
    8
    9
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2489-ag

Citation Numbers: 361 F. App'x 296

Judges: Ann, Debra, Joseph, Livingston, McLaughlin

Filed Date: 1/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023