09-2090-ag

Wang v. Holder

BIA

A075 835 803

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 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 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: Tony West, 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

10 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the

11 case.

12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

13 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517

14 (2d Cir. 2006). An alien who has been ordered removed may

15 file one motion to reopen, but must do so within 90 days of

16 the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7).

17 Here, the BIA properly denied Wang’s motion to reopen as

18 untimely because he filed it almost six years after his

19 January 2003 final order of removal. See id.; 8 C.F.R.

20 § 1003.2(c)(2). 

21 The 90-day filing deadline may be equitably tolled if

22 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,

10 156 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its

11 discretion in denying Wang’s motion. 

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

19 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

20

21 FOR THE COURT:

22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

23

24

25