N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHANLING LU,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71284 Age n c y No. A087-714-442 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DOR SEY, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED NOV 24 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne v a da , sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r Shanling Lu (Lu), a native and c itiz e n of C hina , se e ks re vie w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e d ings. His a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torturewa s pre viously de nie d. Se eLu v . Se ssions , 707 F. App’ x 925 (9th C ir. 2017). In 2019, Lu joine d the C hine se De m oc ra c y

Party (C DP) and file d a

n untim e ly

m otion to re ope n im

m igration proc e e dings ba se d on his m e m be rship. Lu c o nte nde d tha t his a c tive C D P involve m e nt brought the

atte nt ion of loc a l polic e in C hina . Ac c ording to Lu’ s wife , who still live s in C hina , the polic e c ontinuously visit the ir (or he r) hom e and have thre ate ne d him

with be atings a

nd life im prisonm e nt. Lu m a inta ine d tha t the c ra c kdown on de m oc ratic prote stors in Hong Kong de m onstra te s tha t c irc um s ta nc e s for pe rsons who support de m oc ra c y in C h ina

hav e worse ne d sinc e his orde r of re m ova l. The B IA disa gre e d, holding tha t Lu fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the re ha s be e n

a m ate ria l c ha

nge in C hina

for C DP m e m

be rs. The de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n is re v ie we d for a buse of disc re tion. Se e Ete m adi v . Garland

, 12 F.4th 1013, 1018 (9th C ir. 2021). Ge ne ra lly , a m o tion to re ope n m ust be file d

within 90 da

y s from the e ntry of a fina l orde r of re m ova l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i); s e e also 8 C . F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2). B ut a n e x c e ption to the t im e lim it is a

va i la ble if the m otion to re ope n “ is ba se d on c ha nge d c ountry 2c onditions a

rising in the

c ountry of nationa lity

. . . if suc h e vide nc e is m ate ria l a nd wa s not a va ila ble an d would not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the pre vious proc e e ding.” 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(ii); se ealso 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); Go v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 2014). W e have c onsiste ntly rule d tha t a c ha nge in pe rsona l c irc um sta n c e s a lone is not a suffic ie nt ba sis to e xc use an untim e l y m otion to re ope n. Se e

, e .g. , Rodrigue

z v . Garland

, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th C ir. 2021). The re c ord supports the

B IA’ s c onc l usion tha

t c ountry c o nditions ha

ve not c ha nge d for C DP m e m

be rs in C hina

sinc e the tim e of Lu’ s pre v ious he aring. At a ll re le va nt tim e s, the C hine se gove rnm e nt ha s ba nne d the C DP and subje c te d its m e m b e rs (a nd othe r politic a l oppone nts) to va rious form s of ha

ra ssm e nt, inc luding wire ta pping a nd se arc h e s. “ Ge ne ra l re fe re nc e s to c ontinuing or rem a ining proble m s [a

re ] not e vide n c e of a c hange in a c ountry ’ s c onditions. . . .” Id. at 1210 (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d) (e m

p ha sis in the

origina l). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

3