12-2158 Yang v. Holder BIA A077 354 039 

### 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 17 th** **day of October, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 10 Circuit Judges**.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **FANG JIN YANG, AKA OLIVIA CHUNG,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 12-2158** 17 **NAC** 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Garry J. Yerman, New York, New York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy** 26 **Attorney General; Leslie McKay,** 27 **Assistant Director; Ilissa M. Gould,** 28 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 32UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 3 review is DENIED. 4 Fang Jin Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 8, 2012, decision 6 of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Fang Jin 7 Yang, No. A077 354 039 (B.I.A. May 8, 2012). We assume the 8 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 9 procedural history. 10 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 11 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s 12 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. 13 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v. 14 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). When the BIA 15 considers relevant evidence of country conditions in 16 evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual 17 findings for substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. 18 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 An alien may file a motion to reopen within 90 days of 20 the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Yang’s 22

2motion was indisputably untimely because it was filed more 1 than eight years after the agency’s final order of removal, 2

see8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), there is no time 3 limitation for a motion to reopen that is “based on changed 4 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or 5 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such 6 evidence is material and was not available and would not 7 have been discovered or presented at the previous 8 proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 9 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 10 The BIA found no material change because the evidence 11 Yang adduced demonstrated the continual targeting of 12 unregistered religious groups since the time of her last 13 hearing rather than worsened conditions for individuals 14 similarly situated to her. See 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 16 169. Contrary to Yang’s contention, the record does not 17 compel the conclusion that BIA failed to consider any 18 material evidence of changed country conditions. See Xiao 19 Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d 20 Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its 21 discretion in denying Yang’s motion to reopen as untimely. 22
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 23

3For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 3 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 4 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 5 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 6 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 7 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 8
FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10

4