Œ This opinion was released initially in typescript form.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 07-3673

XIU QIN ZHENG,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,

Attorney General of the 

United States,

Respondent.

____________

Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A77-847-340

____________

ON MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL

____________

NOVEMBER 9, 2007Œ

____________

Before COFFEY, RIPPLE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Xiu Qin Zheng, seeks a

stay of his removal to China pending review in this court.

In 2001, Mr. Zheng applied for asylum before an immigration judge (“IJ”). The IJ found significant inconsistencies
2 No. 07-3673

in Mr. Zheng’s testimony and therefore discredited his

testimony and denied his asylum application. In May 2002,

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed

Mr. Zheng’s appeal of the IJ’s decision. The present motion

does not articulate the grounds upon which Mr. Zheng

originally applied for asylum and does not address what

inconsistencies the IJ found in his testimony.

Five years later, Mr. Zheng moved to reopen his asylum

proceedings. First, he submitted that he had received

ineffective assistance from his former attorney who had

represented him before the IJ and the BIA. The BIA

rejected this argument; it noted that his request was

untimely and that he provided no reason to invoke the

doctrine of equitable tolling. Second, Mr. Zheng sought

to reopen his asylum proceedings based on changed circumstances. He maintained that authorities in his hometown recently had carried out harsh investigations of

underground Catholic churches and had arrested his

wife in 2006. At that time, he alleges, she was pressured

to reveal his whereabouts; in addition, she was given a

notice stating that Mr. Zheng would be punished upon

his return to China because he had joined an underground

church. The BIA also refused to reopen Mr. Zheng’s

proceedings based on this ground. It noted that the IJ

already had found incredible his testimony about religious persecution and persecution based on China’s

family planning policies. Finally, the BIA concluded that

Mr. Zheng had failed to demonstrate that he would be

harmed upon his return to China due to his violation of

Chinese exit laws.

Mr. Zheng now petitions for review of both the BIA’s

dismissal of his original asylum claim and the BIA’s

subsequent denial of his motion to reopen those proceedings.
No. 07-3673 3

As an initial matter, we note that the petition for review is timely only as to the BIA’s denial of Mr. Zheng’s

motion to reopen. This petition for review was filed over

five years after the BIA dismissed the appeal stemming

from Mr. Zheng’s original asylum application, well-beyond

the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Asere v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 378, 380 (7th

Cir. 2006).

A petitioner seeking a stay of removal pending judicial

review must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on

the merits; (2) irreparable harm if a stay is not granted;

(3) that the potential harm the petitioner faces outweighs

the harm to the Government; and (4) that granting the

stay would serve the public interest. Sofinet v. INS, 188

F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 1999). If a motion to stay removal

does not set forth information needed for this court to

adjudicate properly the matter, it will be denied. See

Koutcher v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1133, 1134 (7th Cir. 2007).

Given these requirements, we must deny this motion. In

these papers, the petitioner simply makes an inadequate

case. The motion, which is only one sentence long with an

attached two-page affidavit from counsel, provides insufficient information for this court to adjudicate the matter.

The motion fails to state why Mr. Zheng believes that his

former attorney was ineffective or the resulting prejudice

that he suffered. It also makes no mention of what circumstances have changed in China or how these changes

might affect a second asylum application. The motion

merely contends that Mr. Zheng is likely to succeed on

the merits “due to egregious errors of Law and Fact” made

by the IJ and BIA, but fails to articulate what these errors

may be or during what stage of the proceedings these

errors occurred. Without this information, we cannot
4 No. 07-3673

assess the likelihood that Mr. Zheng could succeed in

demonstrating that the BIA erred by refusing to reopen

his proceedings. See Koutcher, 494 F.3d at 1135.

MOTION DENIED

A true Copy:

Teste:

 _____________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—11-19-07