17-1618 

Yang v. Sessions 

BIA 

A072 302 784 

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 11th 4 day of July, two thousand eighteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 REENA RAGGI, 

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 HONG XIONG YANG, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 17-1618 

17 NAC 

18 

19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 

20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

21 Respondent. 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 

27 Assistant Attorney General; 

28 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 

29 Litigation Counsel; Jason Wisecup, 
2

1 Trial Attorney, Office of 

2 Immigration Litigation, United 

3 States Department of Justice, 

4 Washington, DC. 

5 

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

9 is DENIED. 

10 Petitioner Hong Xiong Yang, a native and citizen of the 

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 27, 2017, 

12 decision of the BIA, denying his motion to reopen. In re 

13 Hong Xiong Yang, No. A072 302 784 (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2017). We 

14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

15 procedural history in this case. 

16 The applicable standards of review are well established. 

17 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 

18 2008). In his motion to reopen, Yang asserted that 

19 conditions for pro-democracy activists had worsened in China, 

20 excusing the untimely filing of his motion and demonstrating 

21 his prima facie eligibility for asylum based on his membership 

22 in the Democracy Party of China (“CDP”) in the United States. 
3

1 It is undisputed that Yang’s 2017 motion to reopen was 

2 untimely filed more than fourteen years after his removal 

3 order became final in 2002. See 8 U.S.C. 

4 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the 

5 time limitation for filing a motion to reopen does not apply 

6 if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “is 

7 based on changed country conditions arising in the country of 

8 nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, 

9 if such evidence is material and was not available and would 

10 not have been discovered or presented at the previous 

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

12 § 1003.2(c)(3). The BIA did not err in finding that Yang 

13 failed to demonstrate such conditions. 

14 “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion 

15 to reopen demonstrates a material change in country 

16 conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] 

17 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion 

18 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing 

19 below.” In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). 

20 As the BIA found, reports from the U.S. Department of State 

21 demonstrate that the Chinese government has repressed pro-
4

1 democracy activists since before Yang’s 2000 hearing. And 

2 the BIA did not err in declining to credit the unsworn letter 

3 from Yang’s mother stating that police in China had discovered 

4 Yang’s CDP activities in the United States. See Y.C. v. 

5 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013); Qin Wen Zheng v. 

6 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding 

7 that agency may choose not to credit documentary evidence 

8 submitted by movant found to be not credible in underlying 

9 proceedings). 

10 Accordingly, because the BIA reasonably concluded that 

11 Yang failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions in 

12 China, it did not abuse its discretion in denying Yang’s 

13 motion as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Because 

14 the denial as untimely is dispositive, we do not reach the 

15 BIA’s alternative basis for denying Yang’s motion—his failure 

16 to establish his prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS 

17 v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 

18 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 

19 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 

20 they reach.”). 
5

1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 

3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. 

4 

5 FOR THE COURT: 

6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 

7