Filed: Dec. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-2714 Wang v. Sessions BIA A077 977 498 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 “SUM
Summary: 16-2714 Wang v. Sessions BIA A077 977 498 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..
More
16-2714
Wang v. Sessions
BIA
A077 977 498
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 5th day of December, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIN SHUAN WANG, AKA YAN SHI YU,
14 Petitioner,
15 v. 16-2714
16 NAC
17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
19 Respondent.
20 _____________________________________
21
22 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
23
24 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
25 Attorney General; Janice K. Redfern;
26 Lindsay B. Glauner, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel, Office of
28 Immigration Litigation, United
29 States Department of Justice,
30 Washington, DC.
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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Jin Shuan Wang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 14, 2016,
7 decision of the BIA denying Wang’s untimely motion to reopen
8 proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and
9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin
10 Shuan Wang, No. A077 977 498 (B.I.A. July 14, 2016). We assume
11 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
12 procedural history in this case.
13 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for summary
14 denial of Wang’s petition for review. Summary denial is
15 warranted only if a petition is frivolous, Pillay v. INS, 45
16 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995), and Wang has filed his merits brief.
17 Accordingly, we treat the Government’s motion as a response to
18 that brief, and deny the petition.
19 We review the BIA’s denial of Wang’s motion to reopen for
20 abuse of discretion, and review the BIA’s factual findings
21 regarding country conditions under the substantial evidence
2
1 standard. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d
2 Cir. 2008); Ali v. Gonzales,
448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006).
3 It is undisputed that Wang’s 2016 motion to reopen was
4 untimely because his removal order became final in 2008. See
5 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)(setting 90-day filing period for
6 motions to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)(same). Although
7 this time limitation does not apply if the motion is “based on
8 changed country conditions” since the time of the original
9 hearing, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
10 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), as discussed below, the BIA’s conclusion
11 that Wang failed to establish such a change is supported by
12 substantial evidence, see Jian Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at 169.
13 The BIA reasonably concluded that Wang did not establish
14 a material change in country conditions, given that a 2005 State
15 Department report in the record reflected that members of
16 unregistered churches in China faced mistreatment including
17 arrest, imprisonment, interrogation, and in some cases, “severe
18 physical abuse.” U.S. State Dep’t, China: Profile of Asylum
19 Claims and Country Conditions 5-6 (Oct. 2005); Jian Hui Shao,
20 546 F.3d at 157. Accordingly, Wang’s more recent evidence
21 showing arrests and beatings of unregistered church members did
3
1 not reflect any material change in conditions. In re S-Y-G-,
2 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether
3 evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a
4 material change in country conditions that would justify
5 reopening, [the agency] compare[s] the evidence of country
6 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at
7 the time of the merits hearing below.”). Given the evidence
8 of a continuation of conditions, the BIA did not abuse its
9 discretion in denying Wang’s motion to reopen as untimely. See
10 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
11 Because the BIA’s timeliness ruling is dispositive, we do
12 not reach the BIA’s alternative holding regarding Wang’s prima
13 facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT
14 relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
15 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the Government’s
18 motion for summary denial and Petitioner’s stay motion are
19 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
20 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
4
1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
2 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
