Zhou Bao Ni v. Holder , 383 F. App'x 95 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • 09-4359-ag
    Ni v. Holder
    BIA
    A072 436 135
    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.
    At a stated term of the           United States Court of Appeals
    for the Second Circuit, held           at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    United States Courthouse, 500          Pearl Street, in the City of New
    York, on the 8 th day of July,         two thousand ten.
    PRESENT:
    JON O. NEWMAN,
    GUIDO CALABRESI,
    JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
    Circuit Judges.
    ___________________________________
    ZHOU BAO NI, a.k.a. TI TEE BAO,
    Petitioner,
    v.                                                  09-4359-ag
    NAC
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
    GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ___________________________________
    FOR PETITIONER:                Jed S. Wasserman, New York, New York.
    FOR RESPONDENT:                Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
    Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation
    Counsel,    Ann   M.   Welhaf,    Trial
    Attorney,    Office   of    Immigration
    Litigation, Civil Division, United
    States    Department     of    Justice,
    Washington, D.C.
    UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
    hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
    review is DENIED.
    Zhou Bao Ni, also known as Ti Tee Bao, a native and
    citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a
    September 22, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to
    reopen his removal proceedings.                 In re Ni, No. A072 436 135
    (B.I.A. Sept. 22, 2009).         We assume the parties’ familiarity
    with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
    We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
    abuse of discretion.       See Ali v. Gonzales, 
    448 F.3d 515
    , 517
    (2d Cir. 2006).        An alien who has been ordered removed may
    file one motion to reopen, but must do so within 90 days of
    the final administrative decision.                 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7).
    Here,   the    BIA   properly    denied     Ni’s     motion     to   reopen      as
    untimely and number-barred, as it was his third motion to
    reopen and was filed seven years after his April 2002 final
    order of removal.       See id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
    Although the time limits may be excused when the movant
    demonstrates         changed     country          conditions,        8     U.S.C.
    §   1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii),        the   BIA    reasonably     found         that   the
    evidence      Ni   submitted   failed      to    demonstrate     a   change      in
    -2-
    country conditions in China.               Indeed, Ni fails to point to any
    evidence      in    the       record       establishing           how     the        Chinese
    government’s       current      treatment         of    members     of        the    Chinese
    Democracy Party differed from their treatment at the time of
    his merits hearing.             Ni also does not challenge the BIA’s
    finding that his motion was based on “a change in personal
    circumstances in the United States.”                        Therefore, substantial
    evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Ni failed to
    establish      changed         country        conditions.               See     8     C.F.R.
    § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
    
    546 F.3d 138
    , 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
    Furthermore,       a    reasonable         fact-finder           would        not     be
    compelled     to   conclude         that    the       BIA   ignored       any       material
    evidence or that it failed to provide a sufficient explanation
    for its findings.          Although the agency has an obligation to
    consider all evidence relevant to an applicant’s claim, it
    need    not   “expressly        parse      or    refute      on    the    record           each
    individual     argument        or     piece      of    evidence     offered          by     the
    petitioner.”       Jian Hui 
    Shao, 546 F.3d at 169
    .                  Here, given the
    BIA’s   references        to    the    documentation          submitted             with    the
    motion to reopen, it is apparent that the BIA considered Ni’s
    evidence, and made reasonable findings based on the record.
    See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    471 F.3d 315
    , 337
    -3-
    n.17    (2d    Cir.   2006).   Additionally,   the   BIA   reasonably
    declined to credit Ni’s unauthenticated evidence – a summons
    purportedly from the Public Security Bureau – based on the
    IJ’s underlying adverse credibility determination.           See Qin
    Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 
    500 F.3d 143
    , 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007).
    Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying
    Ni’s motion. See Kaur v. BIA, 
    413 F.3d 232
    , 233 (2d Cir. 2005)
    (per curiam).
    For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    DENIED.       As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
    that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
    and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
    is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
    this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
    34.1(b).
    FOR THE COURT:
    Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    -4-