DONG v. GARLAND (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jian Long Dong, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of an April 11, 2019, BIA decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Jian Long Dong, No. A077 415 473 (B.I.A. Apr. 11, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings to present evidence of his claimed fear of persecution based on the births of his two children in the United States purportedly in violation of China's population control program.

It is undisputed that Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely because he filed it more than one year after he was ordered removed. 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 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).

We find no error in the BIA's determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions related to the enforcement of the family planning policy. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169-73. As the BIA found, Petitioner's evidence reflected that the Chinese government had loosened the family planning policy to permit two children per couple beginning January 1, 2016, and that the use of incentives and economic punishments to coerce compliance with the policy continued as it had for years.

Accordingly, because Petitioner did not establish a material adverse change in conditions in China, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

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