15-545 Zou v. Whitaker BIA A073 570 562 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 23rd day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZONG ZENG ZOU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 15-545 17 NAC 18 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gang Zhou, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28 Leslie McKay, Assistant Director; 1 04122018-8 1 Margot L. Carter, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, 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 Zong Zeng Zou, a native and citizen of the

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 30,

12 2015, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen as

13 untimely and number barred. In re Zong Zeng Zou, No. A073

14 570 562 (B.I.A. Jan. 30, 2015). We assume the parties’

15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

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

17 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

,

18 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

19 Zou moved to reopen his deportation proceedings, alleging

20 a fear of persecution in China on account of the births of

21 his U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s population

22 control program and his membership in the China Democracy

23 Party (“CDP”) in the United States. It is undisputed that

2 04122018-8 1 Zou’s motion to reopen was untimely and number barred because

2 it was his third motion to reopen filed more than 12 years

3 after his deportation order became final. See 8 U.S.C.

4 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i);

(c)(2). These

5 time and numerical limitations do not apply, however, 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 Zou’s new

15 evidence of isolated incidents of persecution failed to

16 demonstrate a material change in conditions related to the

17 enforcement of China’s population control program as needed

18 to excuse the untimely and number barred filing of his motion,

19 much less as to his unsworn, uncorroborated evidence of a

20 single instance of threatened application of China’s policies

21 to children born in the United States. See

-

3 04122018-8 1 66, 169-73 (noting that country conditions evidence from 1998

2 to 2007 indicated that enforcement of the family planning

3 policy was generally lax in Fujian Province with isolated

4 reports of force being used). Nor did the BIA err in finding

5 no material change in conditions as to the Chinese

6 government’s treatment of CDP members since Zou’s 1999

7 hearing. See In re S-Y-G-,

(B.I.A.

8 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion

9 to reopen demonstrates a material change in country

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

11 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion

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

13 below.”). The BIA was not compelled to credit an unsworn

14 letter from Zou’s brother stating that Chinese officials had

15 discovered Zou’s CDP activities in the United States. See

16 Y.C. v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2013) (deferring

17 to agency’s decision regarding the weight to afford evidence

18 that officials were aware of petitioner’s pro-democracy

19 activities in the United States).

20

4 04122018-8 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED.

3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 5 Clerk of Court

5 04122018-8