Qin Zhou v. Holder , 494 F. App'x 184 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          11-4189                                                                        BIA
    Zhou v. Holder                                                        A095 467 934
    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 5th day of September, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                REENA RAGGI,
    8                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    9                CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
    10                     Circuit Judges.
    11       _____________________________________
    12
    13       QIN ZHOU,
    14                        Petitioner,
    15
    16                        v.                                    11-4189
    17                                                              NAC
    18       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    19       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    20                Respondent.
    21       _____________________________________
    22
    23       FOR PETITIONER:                 David X. Feng, New York, New York.
    24
    25       FOR RESPONDENT:                 Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
    26                                       Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron,
    27                                       Assistant Director; Lisa Morinelli,
    28                                       Trial Attorney, Office of
    29                                       Immigration Litigation, Civil
    30                                       Division, United States Department
    31                                       of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    1
    2       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    3   decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
    4   hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
    5   review is DENIED.
    6       Qin Zhou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
    7   of China, seeks review of a September 19, 2011, order of the
    8   BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Qin Zhou, No. A095
    9   467 934 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2011).     We assume the parties’
    10   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
    11   of this case.
    12       We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
    13   abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s
    14   admonition that such motions are “disfavored.”     Ali v.
    15   Gonzales, 
    448 F.3d 515
    , 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
    16   (quoting INS v. Doherty, 
    502 U.S. 314
    , 23 (1992)).     There is
    17   no dispute that Zhou’s 2011 motion to reopen was untimely
    18   because her administrative order of removal became final in
    19   2009.   See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
    20   § 1003.2(c)(2).     Zhou argues that her motion to reopen is
    21   excused from the time limitation based on changed conditions
    22   arising in China since the time of her 2007 merits hearing.
    23   See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
    2
    1   § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).   We find no abuse of discretion in the
    2   BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen as untimely.
    3       Initially, the BIA reasonably determined that Zhou’s
    4   motion failed to establish changed conditions in China
    5   because her conversion to Christianity in the United States,
    6   which occurred after her removal order, was a change in
    7   personal circumstances, not a change of conditions “arising
    8   in” China.   8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
    9   § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 143
    ,
    10   155 (2d Cir. 2008).
    11       Moreover, the BIA reasonably found that the background
    12   evidence submitted with Zhou’s motion to reopen did not show
    13   that the Chinese government’s treatment of Christians had
    14   changed since the time of her 2007 hearing.   See Matter of
    15   S-Y-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007).   The BIA compared
    16   the evidence of country conditions after Zhou’s 2007 hearing
    17   with the evidence in the administrative record at the time
    18   of her hearing, and reasonably concluded that the record did
    19   not establish worsening conditions for Christians.     See Zhi
    20   Yun Gao v. Mukasey, 
    508 F.3d 86
    , 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (per
    21   curiam) (the BIA is not required to “expressly parse or
    22   refute on the record each individual argument or piece of
    3
    1   evidence offered by the petitioner” (internal quotation
    2   marks omitted)).
    3       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    4   DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    5   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    6   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    7   this petition is DISMISSED as moot.    Any pending request for
    8   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    9   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    10   Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    11                                 FOR THE COURT:
    12                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    13
    14
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4189

Citation Numbers: 494 F. App'x 184

Judges: Ann, Christopher, Debra, Droney, Livingston, Raggi, Reena

Filed Date: 9/5/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023