Ping Zheng v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
701 F.3d 237
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Zheng, born February 15, 1984 in Fujian, China, entered the United States illegally in 2001.
- An IJ in 2004 denied her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture as to persecution for Falun Gong.
- The Board affirmed, and this court previously denied Zheng’s petition for review.
- In 2011 Zheng filed a motion to reopen based on marriage, children, and alleged changes in China’s family planning enforcement.
- The Board denied the motion in 2012 as insufficient to show a change in country conditions or an exception to timing/number limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zheng’s motion to reopen was timely or excused by changed country conditions | Zheng contends changed country conditions warrant reopening | Board found no material change in country conditions; timing exception not satisfied | Denied: no rational basis to find material change sufficient for reopening |
| Whether evidence shows a change in China’s enforcement of the one-child policy justifies reopening | Evidence (CECC reports, Sapio critique) shows stricter enforcement could affect her risk | State Department Profile and other evidence do not show a material, province-wide change since hearing | Denied: no substantial change demonstrated in Fujian or broadly sufficient to warrant reopening |
| Whether the Board properly weighed country-conditions evidence against Zheng’s individual risk | Personal fear of sterilization should be considered | Evidence insufficient to establish probability of sterilization or persecution upon reopening | Denied: Board did not abuse discretion; evidence insufficient to sustain likelihood of persecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheng Chen v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2007) (changed conditions not presumed; need material evidence of change)
- Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2011) (personal circumstances alone insufficient to reopen absent changed conditions)
- Liang v. Holder, 626 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2010) (enforcement changes must be material and province-specific)
- Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2004) (well-founded fear standard for asylum after change in circumstances)
- Lin v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2008) (burden of persuasion and reliance on country reports)
- Moosa v. Holder, 644 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2011) (material changes needed to justify reopening)
- Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-,, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209 (BIA 2010) (state dept. reports accord deference; country conditions evidence probative)
- Matter of S-Y-G-,, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2007) (new report not evidence of changed conditions without convincing differences)
- Galina v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (State Dept reports highly probative but not absolute)
- In re Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (finality and disfavor of motions to reopen)
- In re Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (considerations of finality and equitable relief in immigration)