Zheng v. INS

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 5, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 02-60473 Summary Calendar

CHEN ZHENG,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A71-984-803 -------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chen Zheng (Zheng) has filed a petition for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his appeal of an

immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reopen his immigration

proceedings. Zheng argues that his circumstances have changed

since his deportation order was issued in 1994 and that the

immigration judge erroneously denied relief pursuant to the

immigration regulations implementing the Convention Against

Torture.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. To succeed in his motion to reopen, Zheng was required to set

forth a prima facie case of his entitlement to relief. See

Pritchett v. I.N.S., 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993). Zheng does

not provide citations to or discuss the many applicable regulations

with which he was required to comply to obtain relief pursuant to

the Convention Against Torture, nor does he provide record

citations that indicate that he did in fact comply with the

considerable filing requirements set forth in the regulations.

Zheng also does not dispute the specific reasons underlying the

immigration judge’s conclusion that Zheng had failed to set forth

a prima facie case of his entitlement to relief. Therefore, Zheng

has failed to show that the immigration judge’s decision was an

abuse of discretion. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th

Cir. 2000).

Zheng’s reliance in his motion to reopen on In re X-G-W, 22 I.

& N. Dec. 71 (BIA 1998) also does not warrant a reversal of the BIA

decision, although the immigration judge did not specifically

address the applicability of this decision to Zheng’s case. In In

re X-G-W the BIA announced a policy of granting untimely motions to

reopen by certain applicants claiming eligibility for asylum based

on coercive population control policies. Though the policy

announced in In re X-G-W was subsequently reversed in In re G-C-L,

23 I. & N. Dec. 359, 359 (BIA 2002), Zheng’s motion to reopen was

arguably timely pursuant to In re X-G-W. However, even under the

policy announced in In re X-G-W, 22 I. & N. Dec. 71 at 4, the

2 movant seeking reopening of a prior deportation proceeding had to

meet certain prerequisites before reopening would be granted, and

Zheng has not met those prerequisites.

Accordingly, Zheng’s petition for review is DENIED.