09 -2 09 0- ag

Wangv. Holder BIA A075 835 803 

## UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

R u li n gs b y s u m m ary ord er d o no tha ve precedenti alef f ect . C it ati on t o a sum m ary o rder f il ed on or af

t er Ja n u ary 1 , 2 0 0 7 , is p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b yF e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d th is c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W hen c it i ng a sum m ary or deri n a docum e ntf il e d w it h t hi s c ourt ,a par ty m us tc it e e it hert he Fede r al A p p en d i x or an el ectron i c d a tab a se (w ith the n o tati o n “ su m m a ry o rd er” ).A p a rty c iti n g a su m m a ry o rd er m u st se r v e a c o p yo f it o n a n yp a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b yc o u n se l. 

### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 8 day of April, two thousand ten. th 

### 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 WENJU WANG, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 09-2090-ag 17 NAC 18 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY 20 GENERAL, 21 Respondent . 22

_______________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: T o ny We s t , Assistant Attorney 27 General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. 29 Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, Civil

### 2 1 Division, United States Department 2 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for 4 review is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Wenju Wang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 30, 7 2009 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his 8 removal proceedings. In re Wenju Wang , No. A075 835 803 9 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity 1 0 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the 1 1 case. 1 2 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 1 3 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 1 4 (2d Cir. 2006). An alien who has been ordered removed may 1 5 file one motion to reopen, but must do so within 90 days of 1 6 the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). 1 7 Here, the BIA properly denied Wang’s motion to reopen as 1 8 untimely because he filed it almost six years after his 1 9 January 2003 final order of removal. See id. ; 8 C.F.R. 2 0 § 1003.2(c)(2). 2 1 The 90-day filing deadline may be equitably tolled if 2 2 the alien can establish “changed country conditions arising

### 3 1 in the country of nationality . . . .” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, 3 however, the BIA reasonably concluded that recent activities 4 relating to China’s suppression of political dissent on the 5 internet did not constitute changed country conditions. See 6 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Furthermore, there is no merit 7 to Wang’s argument that he was not required to show changed 8 country conditions in order to excuse the untimely filing of 9 his motion to reopen. Yuen Jin v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 143, 1 0 156 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its 1 1 discretion in denying Wang’s motion. 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 7 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 8 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 9 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 20 2 1 FOR THE COURT: 2 2 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23 24 25