1 04122018-5 14-3769 Lin v. Whitaker BIA A099 938 809 

### 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 TO 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** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 14 th**  **day of December, two thousand** 4 **eighteen.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 8 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 9 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 10 Circuit Judges. 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **JINCHUN LIN, AKA JIN CHUN LIN,** 14 Petitioner **,** 15 16 **v. 14-3769** 17 **NAC** 18 19 **MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING** 20 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent **.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER:** Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 282 04122018-5 Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant 1 Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Jinchun Lin, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 16, 13 2014, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen as 14 untimely and number barred. In re Jinchun Lin, No. A099 938 15 809 (B.I.A. Sept. 16, 2014). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 19 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 Lin moved to reopen her removal proceedings to present 21 new evidence in support of her claimed fear of persecution in 22 China based on the births of her U.S. citizen children in 23 violation of China’s population control program. It is 243 04122018-5 undisputed that Lin’s motion to reopen was untimely and number 1 barred because it was her second motion to reopen filed more 2 than five years after her removal order became final. See 3 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 4 These time and numerical limitations do not apply if the 5 motion is to reopen proceedings in order to apply for asylum 6 “based on changed country conditions arising in the country 7 of nationality or the country to which removal has been 8 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available 9 and would not have been discovered or presented at the 10 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see 11 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 12 For largely the same reasons set forth in Jian Hui Shao , 13 we find no error in the agency’s determination that the 14 isolated reports of force used to implement the family 15 planning policy identified in Lin’s new evidence failed to 16 demonstrate a material change in conditions in China as needed 17 to excuse the time and number limitations. See 546 F.3d at 18 159-66, 169-73 (noting that country conditions evidence from 19 2007 indicated that enforcement of family planning policy was 20 generally lax in Fujian Province with isolated reports of 214 04122018-5 force being used); see also In re S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 1 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence 2 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material 3 change in country conditions that would justify reopening, 4 [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions 5 submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time 6 of the merits hearing below.”). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8

DENIED. 9
FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 11 Clerk of Court 12