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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 14th 4 day of December, two thousand 

5 eighteen. 

6 

7 PRESENT: 

8 JON O. NEWMAN,

9 DENNIS JACOBS, 

10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _____________________________________ 

13 

14 JINCHUN LIN, AKA JIN CHUN LIN, 

15 Petitioner, 

16 

17 v. 14-3769 

18 NAC 

19 

20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 

21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

22 Respondent. 

23 _____________________________________ 

24 

25 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. 

26 

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 
2

04122018-5 

1 Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant 

2 Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial 

3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

4 Litigation, United States 

5 Department of Justice, Washington, 

6 DC. 

7 

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

11 is DENIED. 

12 Petitioner Jinchun Lin, a native and citizen of the 

13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 16, 

14 2014, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen as 

15 untimely and number barred. In re Jinchun Lin, No. A099 938 

16 809 (B.I.A. Sept. 16, 2014). We assume the parties’ 

17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

18 in this case. The applicable standards of review are well 

19 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 

20 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 

21 Lin moved to reopen her removal proceedings to present 

22 new evidence in support of her claimed fear of persecution in 

23 China based on the births of her U.S. citizen children in 

24 violation of China’s population control program. It is 
3

04122018-5 

1 undisputed that Lin’s motion to reopen was untimely and number 

2 barred because it was her second motion to reopen filed more 

3 than five years after her removal order became final. See

4 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 

5 These time and numerical limitations do not apply if the 

6 motion is to reopen proceedings in order to apply for asylum 

7 “based on changed country conditions arising in the country 

8 of nationality or the country to which removal has been 

9 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available 

10 and would not have been discovered or presented at the 

11 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see 

12 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

13 For largely the same reasons set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 

14 we find no error in the agency’s determination that the 

15 isolated reports of force used to implement the family 

16 planning policy identified in Lin’s new evidence failed to 

17 demonstrate a material change in conditions in China as needed 

18 to excuse the time and number limitations. See 546 F.3d at 

19 159-66, 169-73 (noting that country conditions evidence from 

20 2007 indicated that enforcement of family planning policy was 

21 generally lax in Fujian Province with isolated reports of 
4

04122018-5 

1 force being used); see also In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 

2 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence 

3 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material 

4 change in country conditions that would justify reopening, 

5 [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions 

6 submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time 

7 of the merits hearing below.”). 

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

9 DENIED. 

10 FOR THE COURT: 

11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 

12 Clerk of Court