13-3378 Zeng v. Lynch BIA A077 993 929 

### 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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 2 nd** **day of July, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 7 Chief Judge**,** 8 **REENA RAGGI,** 9 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 10 Circuit Judges**.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **CHANG FAN ZENG,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 13-3378** 17 **NAC** 18 19 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1**  21 Respondent**.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24

1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.**FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael** 1 **Brown, PC, New York, New York.** 2 3 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 4 **General; Janice K. Redfern, Senior** 5 **Litigation Counsel; William C.** 6 **Minick, Attorney, Office of** 7 **Immigration Litigation, Civil** 8 **Division, United States Department** 9 **of Justice, Washington D.C.** 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 14 is DENIED. 15 Petitioner Chang Fan Zeng, a native and citizen of 16 China, seeks review of an August 12, 2013 decision of the 17 BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Chang Fan Zeng, No. 18 A077 993 929 (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 20 in this case. 21 “We review the denial of motions to reopen immigration 22 proceedings for abuse of discretion.” Ali v. Gonzales , 448 23 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Aliens seeking to reopen 24 proceedings may move to reopen no later than 90 days after 25 the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. 26 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). That time 27 limitation does not apply if the motion is “based on changed 28
2country conditions arising in the country of nationality . . 1 . if such evidence is material and was not available and 2 would not have been discovered or presented at the previous 3 hearing.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 4 Zeng’s motion to reopen was untimely by five years. 5 Thus, he needed to present reliable evidence of changed 6 country conditions to support his claim that the Chinese 7 government will persecute him for following Falun Gong. 8 Zeng submitted a village committee notice that threatened 9 him with severe punishment for practicing Falun Gong in the 10 United States, and a letter from his father in China about 11 his receipt of that notice. The BIA reasonably gave little 12 weight to those documents. While it may not have been 13 reasonable for the BIA to expect additional authenticating 14 evidence for the village committee notice, see Cao He Lin v. 15 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 428 F.3d 391, 404–05 (2d Cir. 2005), 16 the BIA did not abuse its discretion in discrediting it 17 because it was tainted by the previous adverse credibility 18 finding against Zeng, see Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales , 500 19 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007). That finding likewise 20 undermined the letter from Zeng’s father, which also was not 21 notarized, appeared to be prepared for the purpose of 22

3litigation, and was written by an interested witness who 1 would not be subject to cross-examination.See Xiao Ji Chen 2 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) 3 (holding that the weight afforded to the applicant’s 4 evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the 5 discretion of the agency); In re H–L–H & Z–Y–Z– , 25 I. & N. 6 Dec. 209, 214-15 (BIA 2010), overruled in part on other 7 grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 8 2012). 9 The government seeks summary denial of the petition. 10 We have considered the merits brief submitted by Zeng, and 11 we treat the government’s motion as a response to it. For 12 the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED and 13 the government’s motion is DENIED as moot. As we have 14 completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court 15 previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and Zeng’s 16 pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot. 17 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 18 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 19 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 20

FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24

4