Jian Xiao Zheng v. Mukasey

Second Circuit

Jian Xiao Zheng v. Mukasey

305 F. App'x 765

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 8, 2009

DocketNo. 07-5675-ag

StatusPublished

This text of 305 F. App'x 765 (Jian Xiao Zheng v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jian Xiao Zheng v. Mukasey, 305 F. App'x 765 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jian Xiao Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 21, 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Jian Xiao Zheng, No. A 77 297 196 (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.

The BIA properly denied Zheng’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than ninety days after the final order of removal was issued in his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Zheng does not challenge the BIA’s finding that his motion was untimely, waiving any such challenge. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Zheng failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for the underlying substantive relief sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). Neither in his motion nor in his brief before this Court does Zheng show that (1) his alleged detention was directly related to his own opposition to China’s family planning policy; and (2) even if it was, that the alleged detention rose to the level of persecution. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-310 (2d Cir.2007).¹

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jian Xiao Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 21, 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Jian Xiao Zheng, No. A 77 297 196 (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.

The BIA properly denied Zheng’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than ninety days after the final order of removal was issued in his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Zheng does not challenge the BIA’s finding that his motion was untimely, waiving any such challenge. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Zheng failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for the underlying substantive relief sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). Neither in his motion nor in his brief before this Court does Zheng show that (1) his alleged detention was directly related to his own opposition to China’s family planning policy; and (2) even if it was, that the alleged detention rose to the level of persecution. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-310 (2d Cir.2007).¹

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 F. App'x 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jian-xiao-zheng-v-mukasey-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack