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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 2nd 4 day of July, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

8 Chief Judge,

9 REENA RAGGI,

10 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _____________________________________

13

14 CHANG FAN ZENG,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 13-3378

18 NAC

19

20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,1 21

22 Respondent.

23 _____________________________________

24 

1 Pursuant 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.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael

2 Brown, PC, New York, New York.

3

4 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

5 General; Janice K. Redfern, Senior

6 Litigation Counsel; William C.

7 Minick, Attorney, Office of

8 Immigration Litigation, Civil

9 Division, United States Department

10 of Justice, Washington D.C.

11

12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

15 is DENIED.

16 Petitioner Chang Fan Zeng, a native and citizen of

17 China, seeks review of an August 12, 2013 decision of the

18 BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Chang Fan Zeng, No.

19 A077 993 929 (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’

20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

21 in this case. 

22 “We review the denial of motions to reopen immigration

23 proceedings for abuse of discretion.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448

24 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Aliens seeking to reopen

25 proceedings may move to reopen no later than 90 days after

26 the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C.

27 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). That time

28 limitation does not apply if the motion is “based on changed

2
1 country conditions arising in the country of nationality . .

2 . if such evidence is material and was not available and

3 would not have been discovered or presented at the previous

4 hearing.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 

5 Zeng’s motion to reopen was untimely by five years. 

6 Thus, he needed to present reliable evidence of changed

7 country conditions to support his claim that the Chinese

8 government will persecute him for following Falun Gong. 

9 Zeng submitted a village committee notice that threatened

10 him with severe punishment for practicing Falun Gong in the

11 United States, and a letter from his father in China about

12 his receipt of that notice. The BIA reasonably gave little

13 weight to those documents. While it may not have been

14 reasonable for the BIA to expect additional authenticating

15 evidence for the village committee notice, see Cao He Lin v.

16 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 404–05 (2d Cir. 2005),

17 the BIA did not abuse its discretion in discrediting it

18 because it was tainted by the previous adverse credibility

19 finding against Zeng, see Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500

20 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007). That finding likewise

21 undermined the letter from Zeng’s father, which also was not

22 notarized, appeared to be prepared for the purpose of

3
1 litigation, and was written by an interested witness who

2 would not be subject to cross-examination. See Xiao Ji Chen

3 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006)

4 (holding that the weight afforded to the applicant’s

5 evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the

6 discretion of the agency); In re H–L–H & Z–Y–Z–, 25 I. & N.

7 Dec. 209, 214-15 (BIA 2010), overruled in part on other

8 grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.

9 2012). 

10 The government seeks summary denial of the petition. 

11 We have considered the merits brief submitted by Zeng, and

12 we treat the government’s motion as a response to it. For

13 the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED and

14 the government’s motion is DENIED as moot. As we have

15 completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court

16 previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and Zeng’s

17 pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot.

18 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is

19 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate

20 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 

21 FOR THE COURT: 

22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

23

24

4