You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Jin Xi Zhang v. Holder

Citation: 333 F. App'x 622Docket: No. 08-5383-ag

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 18, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Jin Xi Zhang, a citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's October 28, 2008 order that denied his third motion to reopen removal proceedings. The review focused on whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion, which is typically disfavored. The BIA found Zhang did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, specifically regarding claims related to his wife's alleged forced sterilization, arrest, and fine. The BIA also reasonably discounted a village committee notice Zhang submitted, as it contradicted other evidence he had provided. Given Zhang's previous credibility issues, the BIA was not required to accept the new evidence. The BIA's determination on prima facie eligibility was decisive in denying the motion. Consequently, the petition for review was denied, and the motion for a stay of removal was dismissed as moot.

Legal Issues Addressed

Abuse of Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen

Application: The court evaluates whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings, a decision which is generally disfavored.

Reasoning: The review focused on whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion, which is typically disfavored.

Contradictory Evidence

Application: The BIA discounted evidence that contradicted other evidence provided by Zhang, affecting the decision on his motion to reopen.

Reasoning: The BIA also reasonably discounted a village committee notice Zhang submitted, as it contradicted other evidence he had provided.

Credibility and New Evidence

Application: The BIA is not required to accept new evidence if the applicant has previous credibility issues, as demonstrated in Zhang's case.

Reasoning: Given Zhang's previous credibility issues, the BIA was not required to accept the new evidence.

Denial of Petition for Review and Motion for Stay of Removal

Application: Zhang's petition for review was denied and the motion for a stay of removal was dismissed as moot due to the BIA's decisive determination on prima facie eligibility.

Reasoning: The BIA's determination on prima facie eligibility was decisive in denying the motion. Consequently, the petition for review was denied, and the motion for a stay of removal was dismissed as moot.

Prima Facie Eligibility for Relief

Application: The BIA denied Zhang's motion to reopen on the grounds that he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.

Reasoning: The BIA found Zhang did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, specifically regarding claims related to his wife's alleged forced sterilization, arrest, and fine.