JINCHUN LIN AKA v. WHITAKER (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jinchun Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 16, 2014, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen as untimely and number barred. In re Jinchun Lin, No. A099 938 809 (B.I.A. Sept. 16, 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).

Lin moved to reopen her removal proceedings to present new evidence in support of her claimed fear of persecution in China based on the births of her U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s population control program. It is undisputed that Lin’s motion to reopen was untimely and number barred because it was her second motion to reopen filed more than five years after her removal order became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). These time and numerical limitations do 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 the isolated reports of force used to implement the family planning policy identified in Lin’s new evidence failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions in China as needed to excuse the time and number limitations. See 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169-73 (noting that country conditions evidence from 2007 indicated that enforcement of family planning policy was generally lax in Fujian Province with isolated reports of force being used); see also In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”).

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