FEI GUO TANG v. WHITAKER (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Fei Guo Tang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 24, 2014, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen as untimely. In re Fei Guo Tang, No. A072 340 105 (B.I.A. Jan. 24, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

Tang moved to reopen his deportation proceedings to present new evidence in support of his claimed fear of persecution in China based on the births of his U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s population control program. It is undisputed that Tang’s motion to reopen was untimely filed more than 15 years after his in absentia deportation order became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

The time limitation does not apply if the motion is to reopen proceedings in order to apply for asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). For largely the same reasons set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Tang failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions as needed to excuse the untimely filing of his motion. See 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169-73 (noting that since at least 1998 enforcement of family planning policy has been generally lax in Fujian Province with isolated reports of force being used).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.