Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure * 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 07 -54 54 -ag Zeng v . Hold er BIA A029 793 777 

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

# SUM MARY O RDE R

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER D O N O T H AV E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I O N T O S U MMA R Y ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCED U R E 3 2 . 1 . I N A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDE R I S AVA I L A BLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DAT ABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABA SE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. 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 19 day of November, two thousand nine. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge , 9 JON. O. NEWMAN, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges . 12

_________________________________________ 13 14 SHI MING ZENG, 15 Petitioner , 16 17 v. 07-5454-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES * 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent . 22

_________________________________________ 232 1 FOR PETITIONER: Yuming Wang, Wynnewood, 2 Pennsylvania. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant 5 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 6 Wright, Assistant Director; Yamileth 7 G. Handuber, Trial Attorney; Office 8 of Immigration Litigation, Civil 9 Division, United States Department 10 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 11 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 5 is DENIED. 1 6 Petitioner Shi Ming Zeng, a native and citizen of the 1 7 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 8, 1 8 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re 19 Shi Ming Zeng, No. A029 793 777 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2007). We 2 0 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 2 1 and procedural history in this case. 2 2 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 2 3 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 2 4 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of 2 5 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we 2 6 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial 2 7 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 2 8 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 9 The BIA did not err in denying Zeng’s untimely motion3 1 to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 2 § 1003.2(c)(2). Zeng argues that the BIA erred in 3 concluding that he failed to produce evidence demonstrating 4 either material changed country conditions sufficient to 5 excuse the untimely filing of his motion to reopen or his 6 prima facie eligibility for relief from deportation. 7 However, these arguments fail because we have previously 8 reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence similar to that 9 which Zeng submitted and have found no error in its 1 0 conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to establish 1 1 either material changed country conditions or a reasonable 1 2 possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 1 3 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not ourselves attempt to 1 4 resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within 1 5 the discretion of the agency”); see also Wei Guang Wang v. 16 BIA , 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while the 1 7 BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird 1 8 affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] 1 9 . . . it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing 2 0 court presuming that it has abused its discretion”). 2 1 Moreover, contrary to Zeng’s argument, the BIA reasonably 2 2 found that his particularized evidence was not material 2 3 because it did not reference the forced sterilizations of4 1 similarly situated individuals. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d 2 at 160-61. Even if, as Petitioner contends, the BIA was 3 mistaken in thinking that he had failed to submit the 4 original of the document from the Tinjiang Town Government, 5 any such error is harmless because the BIA reasonably 6 stated, “Even if we consider arguendo this document, he has 7 not demonstrated that the policy expressed within 8 constituted evidence of changed country conditions in the 9 absence of any evidence that the prior version of the law 1 0 was different, or differently enforced, in some relevant and 1 1 material way.” (BIA opinion at 3) 1 2 We lack jurisdiction to consider any argument that the 1 3 BIA abused its discretion in declining to reopen Zeng’s 1 4 proceedings sua sponte . See Ali , 448 F.3d at 518.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15 1 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 2 0 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 2 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 2 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 2 3 FOR THE COURT: 2 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 25 2 6 By:___________________________