En Hua Zhu v. William Barr


NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0575n.06 No. 19-4102 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Oct 07, 2020 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk EN HUA ZHU, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioner, ) OF A FINAL ORDER OF THE ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. OPINION ) BEFORE: MERRITT, MOORE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. En Hua Zhu petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. Previously, Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), had filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture on the basis of his Christian religion. A.R. at 403–12. Shortly thereafter, the Government commenced removal proceedings against Zhu, id. at 518–19, and Zhu conceded removability, id. at 209. On October 26, 2009, the immigration judge denied Zhu’s application for relief, id. at 174, and the BIA dismissed Zhu’s appeal, id. at 110. We dismissed in part and denied in part Zhu’s petition for review. En Hua Zhu v. Holder, 528 F. App’x 544, 547 (6th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Now, Zhu has moved to reopen his proceedings in light of his participation in the China Democracy Party and worsening conditions for pro-democracy advocates in China. No. 19-4102, Zhu v. Barr Zhu filed his motion to reopen in September 2018. In support of his motion, Zhu submitted evidence to show a change in country conditions for pro-democracy advocates and to prove his participation in the China Democracy Party. See A.R. at 5–20, 37–79. The evidence included several newspaper articles reporting on President Xi Jinping’s growing hostility toward pro- democracy activists since taking office in 2012, id. at 62–79, and an affidavit by a leader of the Democratic Party of China attesting that Zhu has been involved in pro-democracy activities and that pro-democracy advocates in China are increasingly being targeted and imprisoned, id. at 9– 15. On October 15, 2019, the BIA denied Zhu’s motion to reopen. Id. at 4. Generally, a motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, there is no time limit to file a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions supporting the movant’s application for asylum or withholding of removal, provided that the movant can point to material evidence that “was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Zhu’s motion to reopen came years after a final order of removal was entered against him, and the BIA determined that Zhu failed to show that the changed-country-conditions exception applies in his case. “The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals