-
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