Filed: Jul. 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4839-ag Ye v. Holder BIA A077 353 715 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 “SUMM
Summary: 09-4839-ag Ye v. Holder BIA A077 353 715 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 “SUMMA..
More
09-4839-ag
Ye v. Holder
BIA
A077 353 715
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 20 th day of July, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 CHANG JU YE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4839-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Fuhao Yang, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant
27 Director; Justin R. Markel,
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 Chang Ju Ye, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of an October 29, 2009,
7 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Chang
8 Ju Ye, No. A077 353 715 (B.I.A. October 29, 2009). We
9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
10 and procedural history in this 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). An alien may only file one motion to reopen
14 and must do so within 90 days of the final administrative
15 decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
16 However, there is no time or numerical limitation if the
17 alien establishes materially “changed country conditions
18 arising in the country of nationality.” 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
20 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that
21 the birth of Ye’s two U.S. citizen children and his
22 participation in the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) reflected
2
1 changes in his personal circumstances and rather than
2 changed country conditions in China. See Wei Guang Wang v.
3 BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006) (making clear that the
4 time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen may not
5 be suspended because of a “self-induced change in personal
6 circumstances” that is “entirely of [the applicant’s] own
7 making after being ordered to leave the United States”).
8 The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
9 the documentary evidence Ye submitted did not meaningfully
10 demonstrate that conditions in China have changed. See Xiao
11 Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315,342(2d Cir.
12 2006); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 169
13 (2d Cir. 2008).
14 Contrary to Ye’s argument, the record does not
15 compellingly suggest that the BIA failed to consider any
16 material evidence. See Xiao Ji
Chen, 471 F.3d at 337 n.17
17 (presuming that the agency “has taken into account all of
18 the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly
19 suggests otherwise”). Rather, the BIA properly declined to
20 credit Ye’s unsworn and unauthenticated evidence based on
21 the Immigration Judge’s underlying adverse credibility
22 determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143,
3
1 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007).
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
4
