Qiao Chan Zhang v. Sessions
685 F. App'x 38
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Qiao Chan Zhang, a Chinese national and former Falun Gong practitioner, sought review of the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings.
- Zhang filed a second, untimely motion to reopen based on alleged changed country conditions in China regarding treatment of Falun Gong practitioners.
- She submitted documentary evidence including State Department reports (notably the 2013 IRF report), a village committee notice, a letter from her mother, and referenced a letter from her grandmother.
- The BIA found Zhang’s proffered evidence showed ongoing, not materially increased, persecution compared to conditions at her 2001 merits hearing and denied the motion as untimely and number-barred.
- The BIA discounted the village committee notice and mother’s letter as unauthenticated and from interested witnesses; it did not consider the grandmother’s letter because it was not appended or cited in the motion.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and substantial-evidence where appropriate, and denied Zhang’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / material change to excuse 90-day bar | Zhang: country conditions worsened since 2001 (e.g., psychiatric hospitals, labor camps, pressure on families, organ-harvesting reports) | Gov: evidence shows ongoing conditions, not a material change since 2001 | BIA did not abuse discretion; record does not show material change to excuse time/number bars |
| Whether BIA ignored petitioner’s evidence | Zhang: BIA failed to address her documentary record | Gov: BIA reviewed and cited reports showing continued (not increased) persecution | Court: BIA gave reasoned consideration; need not parse every argument or piece of evidence |
| Weight/authentication of village notice and mother’s letter | Zhang: these documents show recent targeting and should be credited | Gov: documents unauthenticated, handwritten, from interested witnesses, created for litigation | BIA permissibly discounted them; appellate court defers to agency’s evidentiary weight determinations |
| Failure to consider grandmother’s letter / remand | Zhang: BIA overlooked grandmother’s letter referenced in motion | Gov: letter was not appended or cited; would be similarly unreliable | Court: BIA’s omission was not reversible; remand would be futile given letter’s attributes |
Key Cases Cited
- Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (motions to reopen are disfavored; abuse-of-discretion review)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1992) (motions to reopen disfavored)
- Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (substantial-evidence review of BIA findings about country conditions)
- Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2006) (BIA must give reasoned consideration but need not parse every piece of evidence)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2006) (BIA not required to expressly refute each argument or item of evidence)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (deference to agency determinations on weight of documentary evidence)
- Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (issues involving authentication and the effect of agency evidentiary rulings)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (treatment of letters from relatives/acquaintances in asylum context)