14-3769 Lin v. Whitaker BIA A099 938 809 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 14th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNIS JACOBS, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JINCHUN LIN, AKA JIN CHUN LIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 14-3769 18 NAC 19 20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 1 04122018-5 1 Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant 2 Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

11 is DENIED.

12 Petitioner Jinchun Lin, a native and citizen of the

13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 16,

14 2014, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen as

15 untimely and number barred. In re Jinchun Lin, No. A099 938

16 809 (B.I.A. Sept. 16, 2014). We assume the parties’

17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

18 in this case. The applicable standards of review are well

19 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

,

20 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

21 Lin moved to reopen her removal proceedings to present

22 new evidence in support of her claimed fear of persecution in

23 China based on the births of her U.S. citizen children in

24 violation of China’s population control program. It is

2 04122018-5 1 undisputed that Lin’s motion to reopen was untimely and number

2 barred because it was her second motion to reopen filed more

3 than five years after her removal order became final. See

4 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i);

(c)(2).

5 These time and numerical limitations do not apply if the

6 motion is to reopen proceedings in order to apply for asylum

7 “based on changed country conditions arising in the country

8 of nationality or the country to which removal has been

9 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available

10 and would not have been discovered or presented at the

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

12 also

(c)(3)(ii).

13 For largely the same reasons set forth in Jian Hui Shao,

14 we find no error in the agency’s determination that the

15 isolated reports of force used to implement the family

16 planning policy identified in Lin’s new evidence failed to

17 demonstrate a material change in conditions in China as needed

18 to excuse the time and number limitations. See

159-66, 169-73 (noting that country conditions evidence from

20 2007 indicated that enforcement of family planning policy was

21 generally lax in Fujian Province with isolated reports of

3 04122018-5 1 force being used); see also In re S-Y-G-,

247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence

3 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material

4 change in country conditions that would justify reopening,

5 [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions

6 submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time

7 of the merits hearing below.”).

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

9 DENIED.

10 FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 12 Clerk of Court

4 04122018-5