2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-23-2008 

# Zh an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3125

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Zh an v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 987. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/987RE SUB M IT C L D - 401 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 3125

___________ CU I YI NG Z HAN, Pet i t i oner

V S. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 78- 858- 596) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on u n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J une 3, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , SM I T H and J O R D A N C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 23, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i oner , C ui Y i ng Z han, has fi l ed a mot i on fora s t ayof r emoval and a pe t i t i on forr evi ew fr om the or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng her m ot i on t o r eopen. T he governm enthas fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryact i on, t o w hi ch2

P e tit io n e r h a s f

iled a re sp o n se in o p p o sitio n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . S e e T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . Pet i t i oner , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, ent er ed the U n ited S tate s o n F e b ru a ry5 , 2 0 0 2 , in C h ica g o , Ill in o is. P e tit io n e r d id n o t p o ss e ss a v a lid entrydocumentand w as s erved on February8, 2002, w i th a cha r gi ng document , al l egi ng s he w as noti n pos s es s i on of a va l i d entrydocument , s he comm i t t ed fr aud, and thats he fal s el yi dent i fi ed her s el f as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. Pet i t i onerw as found r emovabl e by the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) . Pet i t i onerappl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T he I J deni ed r el i ef on D ece m ber 2, 2002, and Pet i t i oner , thr ough couns el , s oughtr evi ew bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . O n A pr i l 9, 2004, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. A l m os tthr ee y e a rs la te r, P e titio n e r f

ile d a m o tio n to re o p e n , w h ic h th e B IA d e n ie d o n J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 . Pet i t i oner , thr ough couns el , has fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew and a mot i on fora s t ayof re m o v a l. T h e g o v e rn m e n t o p p o s e s th e m o tio n a n d h a s f ile d a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry a c tio n . Pet i t i onerhas fi l ed a r es pons e i n oppos i t i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen. See N ocon v . IN S , 7 8 9 F .2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 2 -3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). W e re v iew th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to re o p e n f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . F ilja v . G o n z a le s , 4 4 7 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r th e a b u se o f

d isc re tio n sta n d a rd , the B IA ’s d e c isio n m a yb e re v e rse d o n lyif it i s “a rbitrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr aryto law . ” S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir .3

2002) . W e w i l l s um m ar i l ydenya pet i t i on forr evi ew i f the pet i t i on pr es ent s no s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . A l though Pet i t i oner ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew s eeks r evi ew of the B I A ’ s A pr i l 9, 2004 deci s i on and the B I A ’ s J une 25, 2007 deci s i on, onl ythe B I A ’ s J une 25, 2007 deci s i on, deny i ng Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen, i s pr oper l ybefor e thi s C our t . See N ocon, 789 F. 2d a t 1 0 3 2 -3 3 (e x p lain in g th a t f in a l d e p o rta tio n o rd e rs a n d o rd e rs d e n y in g m o tio n s to r econs i derar e i ndepende nt l yr evi ew abl e and a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew m us tbe fi l ed w i th r es pectt o t he s peci fi c or ders oughtt o be r evi ew ed) . A ccor di ngl y , ourr evi ew does notext end t o t he B I A ’ s A pr i l 9, 2004 or der . See St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405 ( 1995) ( hol di ng thata mot i on forr econs i der at i on does nott ol l the t i m e t o fi l e a pe t i t i on for re v ie w o f

a f in a l d e p o rt a tio n o rd e r) . Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on befor e the B I A s oughtt o r eopen he rpr ocee di ngs beca us e of the bi r th of hertw o chi l dr en. T he B I A concl uded thatPet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen w as un t i m el y . A l tho ug h the B IA recogn i zed thatthere w as an ex cepti on t o the t i m el i ness req u ir em en ts ba sed o n ch an g ed circu m stan ce s in the co u n tryo f n ati o n ali ty , the B IA c o n c l u d e d th a tP e t i t i o n e rh a d f a i l e d t o d e mo n s tr a t e s u c h a c h a n g e . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1003. 2( c) ( i i ) . T he B I A expl ai ned that , contr aryt o Pet i t i oner ’ s as s ert i on, the bi r th of a c h ild d o e s n o t co n stitu te a c h a n g e in p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e s th a t f a lls w ith in § 1003. 2( c) ( i i ) ’ s exce pt i on. See G uan v. B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , 345 F. 3d 47, 49 ( 2d C i r . 2003) . T he B I A fur therconcl uded thatPet i t i onerfai l ed t o demonstr at e that4

countrycondi t i ons had cha nged i n a mannerthatm at er i al l yi m pact s herel i gi bi l i tyfor a s y lu m . W e conc l ude thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen i s not a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, or c o n tra ryto law . A f ter c a re f u l re v iew o f

P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to r eopen, r es pons e i n oppos i t i on and exhi bi t s i n s uppor tther eof, w e conc l ude that P e t i t i o n e rh a s f

a i l e d t o d e mo n s tr a t e c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d i t i o n s . 8 C. F . R. § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . H er e, Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen pr ovi des i nform at i on r egar di ng t he curr entcountr ycondi t i ons forthe Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, butfai l s t o pr es ent ev iden ce o f h o w tho se c o n d it ion s h av e m aterial lych an g ed sinc e h er h ea ri n g b ef o re the IJ in 2 0 0 2 . P e tit io n e r’s re sp o n se in o p p o sitio n to th e m o tio n f o r su m m a rya c tio n sim p ly s t at es “[P] et i t i onerhas offe r ed otherevi dence r el at i ng t o the pr es entenfor cementof the fami l ypl anni ng i n otherpart [s ] of C hi na, ” butfai l s t o i dent i fyanyevi dence d em o n str ati n g a c h an g e in f am il yp lann ing p o li cies. (Pe t’ r R esp . in O p p ’n 5 . ) Fur therm or e, Pet i t i oner ’ s as s ert i on thatthe B I A ’ s focus on the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce i m pos ed an “unr eas onabl e s tr i ngentbur den of pr oof” i s m er i t l es s . ( I d. ) T he B I A ’ s focus on the F u jia n P ro v in c e d id n o t p re ju d ic e P e titio n e r o r i m p o s e a s tr ic te r s ta n d a rd o f p ro o f. B eca us e Pet i t i onerhas fai l ed t o demonstr at e cha nged countrycondi t i ons , the B I A di d not e rr b yd e n y in g h e r m o tio n to re o p e n . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l gran t th e g o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary act i on and s um m ar i l ydenyPet i t i oner ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew . Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on fors t ay5

o f re m o v a l is d e n ie d a s m o o t.