Case ID: f-appx_558/html/0040-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEI YONG LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-3494-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 10, 2014.
    Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Jacob Bashyrov (Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Eric W. Mar-steller, Senior Litigation Counsel; Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: B.D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Wei Yong Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 21, 2012, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Wei Yong Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 21, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). An alien generally must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Lin’s motion was indisputably untimely because it was filed more than seven years after the agency’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), there is no time limitation for filing a motion to reopen if it is “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

However, Lin’s activities in the United States do not constitute changed conditions in China excusing the untimely filing of his motion to reopen. See Li Yong Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 129, 130-81 (2d Cir.2005). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Lin otherwise failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in China based on local Chinese government offi-ciáis’ discovery of his activities in the United States because the BIA reasonably relied on the IJ’s underlying adverse credibility determination to decline to credit the only evidence of such knowledge. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir.2007) (relying on the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to conclude that the BIA may decline to credit documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found not credible in the underlying asylum proceeding (citing Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.2007))). Accordingly, because the BIA did not err in finding that Lin failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions in China, it did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition and the motion to waive oral argument are DISMISSED as moot.