Case Name: XUE BING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 391 F. App'x 952
Docket Number: No. 09-5096-ag
Parties: XUE BING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 952–954

Head Matter:
XUE BING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-5096-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 7, 2010.
Lee Ratner, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director; Matt A. Crapo, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Xue Bing Zhang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a November 18, 2009 order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider and reopen. In re Xue Bing Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2009). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case and note that this was Zhang's fifth motion filed before the BIA.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). Here, the BIA reasonably denied Zhang's motion to reconsider because she failed to show any error in fact or law in the BIA's prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001). Contrary to Zhang's arguments, the BIA reasonably declined to credit her unauthenticated evidence based on the IJ's underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir.2007). Furthermore, the BIA did not err in finding no error in fact or law in its prior decision, where it relied on State Department reports, noted that Zhang voluntarily sent her United States citizen child back to China, and highlighted other authenticity concerns with her evidence, to conclude that Zhang failed to overcome the prior adverse credibility determination with credible evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006); Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir.2006); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999).
With respect to her untimely and number-barred motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Zhang failed to establish either a change in country conditions or her prima facie eligibility for relief. See Kaur, 413 F.3d at 233. The BIA also reasonably noted that Zhang failed to attach an updated asylum application to her motion, which is a requirement of establishing prima facie eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief is a ground upon which a motion to reopen may be denied). In addition, the BIA considered the evidence she submitted, and, in light of the prior adverse credibility determination as well as evidentiary and authenticity concerns, reasonably concluded that she failed to establish a material change in country conditions in China based either on her Falun Gong practice or the family planning policy. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270 (2d Cir.2006); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 161-62 (2d Cir.2008).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending re-' quest for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).