09

- 50 96

- ag

Zh ang v . H o lder B IA A075 962 501 

### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

RUL ING S BYSU

MMA RY ORD ER DO NOT HA VE PRE CED ENT IALEF FEC T. CITATI ON TO A S UMM ARYOR DER FIL E D O N O R AFT ER JANUAR Y 1 , 2 007 , I S PERM ITT ED AND IS GO VER NED BYFE DER

AL RUL E O F APPELL ATE PR OCE DUR E 3 2.1 AND THI S COURT’ S LOCAL RUL E 32. 1.1 . WHENCI TIN G A SU MMA RY ORD ER IN A D OCU

MEN T F ILE D W ITHTH IS COURT, A PARTY MUS T CIT E E ITHER THE FE DER AL APPEND IX OR AN ELE CTR ONI C DATA

BAS E ( WIT H T HE NOTATI ON “SU MMA RY ORD ER” ). A P

ART Y C ITI NG A S UMM ARY ORD ER MUS T S ERV

E A CO PY OF IT ON ANYPA RTYNO T R

EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 7 day of September, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 C ircuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 XUE BING ZHANG, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 09-5096-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

_________________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, New York, New York. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Michelle Gorden Latour, 27 Assistant Director; Matt A. Crapo, 28 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, United States Department 30 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 312 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Xue Bing Zhang, a native and citizen of 6 China, seeks review of a November 18, 2009 order of the BIA 7 denying her motion to reconsider and reopen. In re Xue Bing 8 Zhang , No. A075 962 501 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2009). We assume 9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 1 0 procedural history in this case and note that this was 1 1 Zhang’s fifth motion filed before the BIA. 1 2 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or 1 3 reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA , 413 1 4 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Here, the BIA 1 5 reasonably denied Zhang’s motion to reconsider because she 1 6 failed to show any error in fact or law in the BIA’s prior 1 7 decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. 18 Dep’t of Justice , 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). Contrary 1 9 to Zhang’s arguments, the BIA reasonably declined to credit 2 0 her unauthenticated evidence based on the IJ’s underlying 2 1 adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. 22 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007). Furthermore,3 1 the BIA did not err in finding no error in fact or law in 2 its prior decision, where it relied on State Department 3 reports, noted that Zhang voluntarily sent her United States 4 citizen child back to China, and highlighted other 5 authenticity concerns with her evidence, to conclude that 6 Zhang failed to overcome the prior adverse credibility 7 determination with credible evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. 8 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); Tu 9 Lin v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir. 2006); Melgar de 10 Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999). 1 1 With respect to her untimely and number-barred motion to 1 2 reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that 1 3 Zhang failed to establish either a change in country 1 4 conditions or her prima facie eligibility for relief. See 15 Kaur , 413 F.3d at 233. The BIA also reasonably noted that 1 6 Zhang failed to attach an updated asylum application to her 1 7 motion, which is a requirement of establishing prima facie 1 8 eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also INS v. 19 Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (failure to establish 20 prima facie eligibility for relief is a ground upon which a 2 1 motion to reopen may be denied). In addition, the BIA 2 2 considered the evidence she submitted, and, in light of the4 1 prior adverse credibility determination as well as 2 evidentiary and authenticity concerns, reasonably concluded 3 that she failed to establish a material change in country 4 conditions in China based either on her Falun Gong practice 5 or the family planning policy. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2006); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 6 7 F.3d 138, 161-62 (2d Cir. 2008).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 0 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 5 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 1 6 FOR THE COURT: 1 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18