NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0429n.06 No. 09-3901 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
TAN WU Z HANG, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETI TI ON FORRE VI E W OF A FI NAL ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : K EN

NE DY , RO GE RS, a

nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. KETHL EDGE, Circuit Judge. P etitioner Tan Wu Z hang , a native of China, entere d the Un ite d St a te s in

19 99 and

a pp lie d f or asy lu m. An

imm ig ratio n ju dg e de nie d th a t a pp lic a tio n in 2004; the Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals (B I A) s u m m arily aff irmed the judg e’s de cision in 2005. Z ha ngwa s th e n o rd e re d r e mov e d to Chi na , th ou g h it a pp e ars he ne ve r l e ft

the Un ite d St a te s. I n 20 08 , a lmo st thr e e y e ars a ft e r h is r e mov a l or de r w a s e nte re d, Z ha ngfi le d a mot ion wi th the B I A to reope n his asylum procee dings. H e allege d that he had joined the Party for F ree dom and Democr acy

in China (PFDC), and that, if he returne d to China, he would be perse cuted be cause of his po lit ic a l a c tiv iti e s. To c or ro bo rate his c la im, Z ha

ng a tta c he d s e ve ra l do c ume nts sh ow ingthat, beca use of his PFDC membership, the C hinese gove rnment was hara ssing his family members who
rema ined in China.No. 09-3901

Zhang v. Holder

-2- The B I A ac knowledg ed Z hang ’s evidenc e, but denied his moti on as untimely . Gene rally , an alien must file a motion to re o p en wi thin 90 day s of entry of a r emoval orde r. See8 U .S. C. § 1229a(c )(7) (C)(i). Z hangconce ded that he did not meet that deadline, but a rgued that his moti on
was e x empt from the de adline bec ause it soug ht to raise a n asylum claim and was ba sed on “c hang ed country conditions.” See id. § 1229a(c )(7) (C)(ii) (“ There is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reope n if the basis of the m otion is to apply for [ asylum or wit hholding of remova l] and is based on chang ed country conditions arising in the country of nationality

or the c ountry

to which re moval has bee n order ed”) . The B I A re jected Z hang ’s ar g ument , concludingthat his increa sed political activity was only

“a c hang e in his persona l circumstances, and not a chang ed condition or circ umstance in China.” A .R. at 4. Z hang now petitions for revie w of the BIA’s decision, ag ain arguing that his m o t i o n was timely beca use it was base d on chang ed countr y co n d i t i ons. Specifica lly , Z hangsay s that

“ c ondi ti on s h a [ve ] ch ang e d in Chi na a dv e rs e to h im a s a

dis sid e nt, ” a s sh ow n b y the Chi ne se g overnme nt’s hara ssment of his family members. Z hang ’s Br. at 16. We reviewthe B I A’s denia l of a motion to reope n for a n abuse of discretion. See Da ne

sh v ar v . A sh c ro

ft , 35 5 F .3 d 61 5, 62 5 ( 6th Cir. 2004). As an initial matter, the B I A cor rec tly held that Z hangmust show “chang ed c ou ntr y
c on dit ion s, ” no t me re ly

c ha ng e d p e rs on a l c ir c ums tanc e s. 8 U .S. C. § 12 29 a (c )( 7) (C )( ii) (e mph a sis
a d d e d) ; s ee a l

s o Haddad v. Gonzale

s , 4 37 F .3 d 5 15 , 5 17 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . Co ur ts g e ne ra lly distinguish betwee n the two base d on who is responsible for the chang ed condition: I f a c ountry , for its own reasons, be comes more ho s t i l e towards an alien or his gr oup, then cha

ng ed countr

yNo. 09-3901

Zhang v. Holder

-3- conditions may

exis t; but if an alien voluntarily become s a member

of an a lrea dy -oppre ssed g roup, then he ha s simply

altere d his personal c ircumstance s. See, e .g. , Niyibizi v. Mukasey , 300 F. App’ x 371, 375 (6th Cir. 2008) (a n alien h as alt ere d his personal c ircumstance s if “a static country
c on dit ion
. . . n owa ff

e c t[s] th e a

pp lic ant due to a pe rs on a l cho ic e the a pp lic ant ma de wh ile in t

his
countr y ” ); Larngar v. Holder , 562 F.3d 71, 76 ( 1st Cir. 2009) (“Unde r the c ase la w, a c hange ty p i c a l l y w i l l b e c a t e g o r i z e d a s a c h an g e i n p e r s o n a l c i r c u m s t an c e s , a s o p p o s e d t o a c ha ng e in country circ umstances, if the chang e is self-induc ed”)
. He re , Z han g co nc e de s th a t hi s a sse rt e d c ha ng e in h is c ountr

y ’s c on dit ion

—th e Chi ne se g overnme nt’s incre ased hostility towards him—i s based solely on his actions in this country , rathe r than a shift in China’s attitude towar d dissidents ge nera lly
. See, e .g. , Rep ly B r. a t 2 ( “ Z ha ngampl y demonstrated that country conditions ha[ve] chang ed in C h i n a bec ause of his participation in the PFDC”). Thus, Z hang ’s motion wa s based on chang ed persona l c ircumstance s, not chang ed countr y conditions. I ndeed w e have held as much in two case s that are near ly identical to Z hang ’s. Se e Liu v. Holder , 5 60 F .3 d 4 85 , 4 93 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) (“ L iu’ s r e ma in in g evide nc e , w hic h d e pic te d h is
me mbe rs hip and

pa rt ic ipatio n in the [Chin a De moc ra tic Part y ] an d it s a c tiv iti e s in

the Un ite d St a te s, demonstrated a

chang e in L iu’s persona l circumstanc es but d i dnot demonstrate c hang ed countr y
c on dit ion s in

Chi na ” ); see also W

ang v. Holder , 3 5 9 F
. Ap p ’ x 5 8 9 , 5 9 6 ( 6 thC i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. T h e B IA did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n, the re fo re , in de c lin ingto r e op e n Z ha

ng ’s a sylum

pr oc e e din g s. Z hang ’s petition for re view is denied.