17-1607 Haiou Hu v. Sessions BIA A097 976 136

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 TO 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 24th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAIOU HU, AKA HAI OU DONG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1607 17 NAC 18 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 29 Assistant Director; Kristin 1 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Haiou Hu, a native and citizen of the People’s

11 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 28, 2017, decision

12 of the BIA, denying her motion to reopen. In re Haiou Hu,

13 No. A097 976 136 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2017). We assume the

14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

15 history in this case.

16 The applicable standards of review are well established.

17 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

18 2008). In her motion to reopen, Haiou Hu asserted that

19 conditions for unauthorized religious groups had worsened in

20 China excusing the untimely and number barred filing of her

21 motion and demonstrating her prima facie eligibility for

22 asylum based on her practice of I Kuan Tao in the United

23 States.

2 1 It is undisputed that Haiou Hu’s 2016 motion was untimely

2 and number barred because it was her second motion to reopen

3 filed more than eight years after her removal order became

4 final in 2008. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i);

5

(c)(2). However, the time and number

6 limitations for filing a motion to reopen do not apply if

7 reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “is

8 based on changed country conditions arising in the country of

9 nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered,

10 if such evidence is material and was not available and would

11 not have been discovered or presented at the previous

12 proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also

13

(c)(3)(ii). The BIA did not err in finding

14 that Haiou Hu failed to demonstrate such conditions.

15 “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion

16 to reopen demonstrates a material change in country

17 conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s]

18 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion

19 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing

20 below.” In re S-Y-G-,

(B.I.A. 2007).

21 As the BIA found, the evidence demonstrates that the Chinese 3 1 government has repressed religious groups, including I Kuan

2 Tao practitioners, since long before Haiou Hu’s 2007 hearing.

3 The government nearly eradicated I Kuan Tao in the early 1950s

4 and has continuously targeted practitioners whenever a group

5 has been discovered.

6 Accordingly, because the BIA reasonably concluded that

7 Haiou Hu failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions

8 in China, it did not abuse its discretion in denying her

9 motion as untimely and number barred. See 8 U.S.C.

10 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C). Because the denial as untimely and

11 number barred is dispositive, we do not reach the BIA’s

12 alternative basis for denying Haiou Hu’s motion—her failure

13 to establish her prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS

14 v. Bagamasbad,

(1976) (“As a general rule

15 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on

16 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results

17 they reach.”).

18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal

20 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

21 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 4 1 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

2 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

3 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

4 34.1(b).

5 FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 7 Clerk of Court 8

5