Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60117 Su m m ar y Cal endar Q I H U AL I, a ls o k n o w n a s Q i H u a F i, P e tit io n e r , v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t
.

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s B I AN o. A 097- 903- 403
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Q iH u a L ipeti t i on s t h i s c ou rtt o r e v iew th e den i alby the B oard of Im m i grati on A pp eal s ( B IA) of hi s m ot i on t o reopen b ased on chan ged coun t ry c o n d i t i o n s . We d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I Li , a na t ive a nd c i t i z e n o f t he Pe o pl e ’ s Rep ubl i c o f Chi na, a r r ive d i n t he U n i t ed S ta t es f

rom C h i n a w i t h ou tpossess i n g an y vali d en t ry docum en t s. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60117

Sin ghv. Gonzales , 4 3 6F .3 d 4 8 4 , 4 8 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 1 Id
. (intern al quot ationmark s o mitt ed). 2 Zh u v. Gonzales , 4 9 3F .3 d 5 8 8 , 5 9 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 3 Mikhael v. I

NS, 1 1 5F .3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 2( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 7). 4 2 I m m i gr at i on aut hor i t i es f i r stenc ount er ed Lii n A lb u q u erq u e, N ew M exi c o, as a pa s s e nge ron a Gre yho und bus e n r o ut e t o N e w Yor k. I n N o ve m be r2 00 4, t he D e p a r tm e n t of H o m e la n dS e c u r ityco m m e n c e dre m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t L i,
c har gi ng hi m as re m o va bl e unde r8 U
. S. C. § 118 2( a) ( 6) (A) (i) as a n a l i e n pr e s e nt i n the U ni t e d St at e s w i t ho utb e i ng ad m i t t e d o rpa r o l e d. Af t e ra t r i al , t he I m m ig r a t io n J u d g e (I J ) f o u n dL ir e m o v a b le a s c h a r g e d . T h e I J d e n ie d L i’s ap pl i ca t i o ns f

o ra s ylum , w it hholdi n g of rem oval, an d rel i ef

un der t h e C on ven t i on A gainstT ort u re. Li ap pea l ed t h e I J’ s deci si on t o t h e B IA
. Th e B IAdi sm i ssed L i’ s a p p e a l. La t e r , Li m a r r i e d a nd ha d t wo c hi l d r e n. Af t e rt he b i r t h o f

h i s c hi l d r e n, Li f i l e d a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n w i t h t h e B I A
. L i c l a i me d t h a t t h e b i r t h o f h i s t wo c hi l dre n, al ong w i t h c hanged c ount r y c ondi t i ons i n C hi na r egar di ng i t s fam i l yp l a n n i n g p oli cy , en ti tl ed h i m to n ew p roce ed i n gs . T h e B IAde n i ed the m oti on to
r e o pe n, f

i ndi ng t hatt he m o t i o n w as unt i m e l y and di d no t qua l i f y f o r anyo f

t he
e x c e p tio n s to th e tim e b a r . L i th e n file dth is a p p e a l. II W e re v ie w th e B I A ’ s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re o p e n u n d e ra h ig h ly defer en t i alabu se- of

- di scr et i on st an da rd. “ S o l on g as t h e B oard’ s deci si on i s not 1 capri ci ou s, raci al l y i n vi di ou s, utt erl y w i t h ou tf ou n da t i on i n t h e evi den ce, or o t he r w i s e s o i r r at i o nalt hati ti s a rbi t r ar y r at he rt han t he r e s ul to f a ny perceptibl e rat i on alapp roach, w e m u staf f i rm t h e B oard’ s deci si on . ” W e revi ew 2 th e B IA ’ s l eg a lcon cl u sion s d e n ov o. W e rev i ew the B IA ’ s fa ctu a lf i n d i n gs to 3 determ i n e i f

t h ey are sup ported by sub st an t i alevi den ce. 4N o. 09- 60117

8U .S .C
. § 1 2 2 9 a (c)( 7)( C)(i) ; 8C .F .R
. § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c)(2). 58U .S .C
. § 1 2 2 9 a (c)( 7)( C)(ii); 8C .F .R
. § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c)( 3)(ii). 68C .F .R
. § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c)( 1 ). 7 INS v. Doher ty , 5 0 2U .S
. 3 1 4 , 3 2 3( 1 9 9 2). 8 INS v. Ab udu , 4 8 5U .S
. 9 4 , 1 0 8( 1 9 8 8) (intern al quot ationmark s o mitt ed). 9 3 III A n al i en m u stf

i l e a m ot i on t o reopen w i t h i n ni n et y da ys of t h e date on
w hi c h t he f

i naladm i ni st r at ive dec i si on w as r ender ed. An al i en i s not bound by 5 t h i s t i m i n g requ i rem en t , how ever, i f hi s requ estforrel i ef “i s based on chan ged
coun t ry condit i on s ari si n g i n the coun t ry of n ati on al i t y or the coun t ry to w h i ch
r e m o va lha s b e e n o r de r e d, i f s uc h e vi de nc e i s m at e r i ala nd was no ta va i l ab l e a nd
w o ul d no tha ve be e n di s c o ve r e d o r pr e s e nt e d at t he pr e vi o us pr o c e e di ng. ” The 6 al i e n b e ar s t he b ur de n o f pr o vi ng t hatc o unt r y c o ndi t i o ns ha ve c hang e d. 7 M ot i on s t o reopen i m m i grati on proceedi n gs, an d p art i cul arl y dep ort ati on pr o c e e di ngs , a r e di s fav o r e d b e c aus e “ e ve r y de l ayw o r ks t o t he ad va nt ag e o f t he de po r t ab l e al i e n w ho w i s he s m e r e l y t o r e m ai n i n t he U ni t e d St at e s . ” A s t he 8 S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s s ta te d , th e g r a n tin go f s u c h m o tio n s “ to o fr e e lyw ill p e r m it
e n d le s s d e la yo f d e p o r ta tio n b ya lie n s crea tiv e a n dfe r tile e n o u g h to co n tin u o u s ly p r o d u c e n e w a n dm a te r ia l fa c ts s u ffic ie n t t o e s ta b lis h a p r im a fa c ie ca s e .” 9 Lif i l e d hi s m o t i o n t o r e o pe n 17 5 da ys a f t e rt he BI A’ s f

i nalde c i s i o n, b e yo nd t h e ni n et y- da y l i m i tf or s u ch m ot i on s. Th eref ore , th e m o t i on i s t i m e barred
u n l ess L iqu al i f

i es f or an excepti on t o t h e st atutor y t i m i n g requ i rem en t
. H ere, L i h a s fa ile d t o e s ta b lis h th a t c h a n g e dco u n tr ycir c u m s ta n c e s in C h in a e n tit le hi m t o a n e xc e pt i o n t o t he no r m alf i l i ng pe r i o d. In sup port of

hi s c on t en t i on t h at he est abli shed chan ged coun t ry c ondi t i ons , L ip oint s t o anum berof doc um ent s t hat , he ar gues , s how t hat fam i l y- pl anni ng o f

f i c i al s i n Chi na w o ul d f o r c e hi m t o und e r go a s t e r i l i z at i onN o. 09- 60117

4 operati o n pu r s uantt o t he c o unt r y’ s o ne - c hi l d p o l i c y. The BI A c o r r e c t l y f o und t h a tt h e f

o r e i g n d o c u m e n t s we r e n o tp r o p e r l ya u t h e n t i c a t e dunde r 8 C. F. R. § 2 87. 6(b)
. T hos e doc um ent s t hatw er e adm i ss ibl e do notpr ovi de e vi denc e t hat
c o unt r y c i r c um s t anc e s r e ga r di ng fam i l y- pl anni ng po l i c i e s ha ve c hang e d. F i n al l y, L idi d n ots h o w th a thi s f ear of persecuti on f

or fatheri n g t w o chi l dren in th is co u n tryw a s b a se don ch a n g e dco n d iti o n s in C h in a , a s o p p o s e d t o se lfi n du ced chan ges i n hi s personalci rcum st an ces. T h eref ore, t h e B IAdi d n ot ab us e i t s di s c r e t i o n when i tde ni e d Li ’ s m o t i o n t o r e o pe n. * * * For t he f

or ego i ng r eas ons , w e D E N YLi ’ s pet i t i on. Li ’ s m ot i on f ors t ay o f r e mo v a li s DE NI ED
.