11-4733 Zeng v. Holder BIA A095 710 344 

### 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 21 st** **day of September, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **SHUI XIAN ZENG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-4733** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 25 **Attorney General; James A. Hunolt,** 26 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Stephen** 27 **M. Elliott, Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, United** 29 **States Department of Justice,** 30 **Washington, D.C.** 312 UPON 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 Petitioner Shui Xian Zeng, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 18, 6 2011, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In 7 re Shui Xian Zeng, No. A095 710 344 (B.I.A. Oct. 18, 2011). 8 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 9 and procedural history of this case. 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) (per curiam) 14 (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)). Aliens 15 seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen 16 no later than 90 days after the date on which the final 17 administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is 19 undisputed that Zeng’s July 2011 motion to reopen was 20 untimely, because the BIA issued its final order of removal 21 in 2008. However, the time and number limitations for 22 filing a motion to reopen do not apply if the motion is 233 “based on changed country conditions arising in the country 1 of nationality or the country to which removal has been 2 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available 3 and would not have been discovered or presented at the 4 previous proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see 5 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 6 In this case, the agency did not abuse its discretion 7 in denying Zeng’s motion to reopen as untimely. The 8 background materials do not demonstrate a change in country 9 conditions material to Zeng’s claim. See Jian Hui Shao v. 10 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). Although Zeng 11 provided reports and articles describing the harassment of 12 Christians in China, nothing in those materials compels the 13 conclusion that the treatment of Christians in China has 14 worsened since Zeng’s November 2006 hearing . See Matter of 15

S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (holding that in 16 evaluating evidence of changed country conditions, the BIA 17 “compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted 18 with the motion to those that existed at the time of the 19 merits hearing below”); See Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland 20 Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (stating that this 21 Court treats the agency’s factual findings as “‘conclusive 224 unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 1 conclude to the contrary’”) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 3 Zeng argues that the BIA erred in failing to consider 4 the letter from her cousin, describing harassment and 5 mistreatment she experienced and witnessed in 2010. This 6 claim fails, however, because nothing in the record suggests 7 that the BIA did not consider all of Zeng’s evidence. See 8 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,471 F.3d 315, 338 9 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that this Court will “presume” 10 that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence 11 before [it], unless the record compellingly suggests 12 otherwise”); Jian Hui Shao,546 F.3d at 169 (noting that 13 the agency has no obligation to “expressly parse or refute 14 on the record each ... piece of evidence”) (internal 15 quotation marks omitted). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 18 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 19
FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 21 22 23