Pang v. Sessions

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 29, 2017 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ZHI WEI PANG, a/k/a Zhi Wei Pan, Petitioner, v. No. 17-9500 (Petition for Review) JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before KELLY, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Zhi Wei Pang is a native and citizen of China. He seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition. Pang first entered the United States in 1993. Thereafter, he was involved in protracted immigration proceedings that were eventually resolved in Denver, * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Colorado in 2008. The immigration judge (IJ) denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. As to asylum, the IJ found that Pang failed to establish past persecution on account of a statutorily enumerated ground. In this regard, Pang argued that the fine levied against him for violating China’s family planning policy and the confiscation of some personal property when he could not pay, amounted to persecution. The IJ acknowledged that in certain circumstances economic harm can be considered persecution, but found that the fine and confiscation of property did not rise to such a level. And with respect to withholding of removal, the IJ found that Pang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. Last, the IJ found that Pang failed to establish that he more likely than not would suffer torture by or with the acquiescence of the government upon his return to China. Pang appealed. In a 2010 decision, the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision and dismissed Pang’s appeal. This court denied Pang’s petition for review. In 2016, nearly six years after the BIA dismissed his appeal, Pang filed a motion to reopen the proceedings. He did not submit a new asylum application or indicate which form of relief he was pursuing other than to state in the motion that the proceedings should be reopened “based on his continued economic persecution by the Chinese . . . Government.” Admin. R. at 13. 2 The BIA concluded that the motion was untimely and that Pang failed to establish any changed conditions in China to excuse the untimely filing. The BIA further concluded that ...

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