ZUPING ZHANG v. WHITAKER (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zuping Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 17, 2014, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen as untimely. In re Zuping Zhang, No. A073 539 299 (B.I.A. Oct. 17, 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).

Zhang moved to reopen her deportation 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 Zhang’s motion to reopen was untimely filed more than 16 years after her 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, however, 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 Zhang failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions in China as needed to excuse her untimely filing. See 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169-73. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, and Zhang is from Zhejiang Province, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, Zhang’s evidence related to Zhejiang Province does not show that the “forc[ing]” and “request[ing]” to secure sterilization, that is described in one township’s progress report, involved force sufficient to constitute persecution. See id. at 160-61, 165-66, 171-72.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.