Jin Shuan Wang v. Sessions
705 F. App'x 45
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Jin Shuan Wang, a Chinese national, sought to reopen removal proceedings in 2016 to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after his removal order became final in 2008.
- Wang’s 2016 motion was untimely under the 90-day rule for motions to reopen, so he argued the exception for motions based on changed country conditions.
- The administrative record included a 2005 U.S. State Department report documenting mistreatment (arrests, imprisonment, interrogation, occasional severe physical abuse) of members of unregistered churches in China.
- Wang submitted more recent evidence of arrests and beatings of unregistered church members and argued these showed a material change in country conditions since the 2008 hearing.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the untimely motion, concluding Wang failed to show a material change in country conditions; the BIA alternatively addressed prima facie eligibility but the timeliness ruling was dispositive.
- Wang petitioned the Second Circuit; the Government moved for summary denial, but the court treated that as a response to Wang’s merits brief and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 motion to reopen was timely under the changed-country-conditions exception | Wang: recent evidence of arrests/beatings of unregistered church members shows material change since the merits hearing | Gov/BIA: country conditions showing mistreatment of unregistered church members existed in the record (e.g., 2005 State Dept. report); new evidence does not show a material change | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that conditions did not materially change, so motion was untimely |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen | Wang: BIA should have found changed conditions and reopened proceedings | Gov/BIA: BIA acted within its discretion comparing new evidence to prior record | Denied — no abuse of discretion; BIA reasonably relied on earlier country-conditions evidence |
| Whether petitioner made a prima facie showing for asylum/withholding/CAT relief | Wang: merits relief warranted if reopened | Gov/BIA: merits not reached because motion untimely; alternate BIA analysis considered but not dispositive | Not reached — court affirmed based on timeliness, did not decide merits |
| Whether the petition should be summarily denied | Gov: moved for summary denial | Wang: filed merits brief so summary denial inappropriate | Court: treated motion as response and resolved merits; petition denied on merits/timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for summary denial of petitions)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for reviewing BIA denial of motion to reopen and substantial-evidence review of country conditions)
- Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (standards for review of BIA factual findings)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (BIA timeliness rules can be dispositive; court may decline to reach alternative grounds)