Narrative Opinion Summary
Petitioner Ling Ling Zhu, a citizen of China, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order from June 12, 2007, which denied her motion to reopen her case. The court reviews BIA's denial for abuse of discretion, applying the substantial evidence standard to factual findings regarding country conditions. Zhu's untimely motion was denied, as the BIA found her supporting documentation insufficient to demonstrate changed country conditions or a prima facie case for relief. Zhu contended that the BIA erred in its assessment of her evidence, yet the court noted its prior rulings affirmed the BIA's conclusions regarding similar evidence. Additionally, Zhu's claim to file a successive asylum application due to her two U.S.-born children was rejected based on precedent. Consequently, the petition for review was denied, any previously granted stay of removal was vacated, and any pending motions for a stay were dismissed as moot. Requests for oral argument were also denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Petitions for Review and Related Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: When a petition for review is denied, any previously granted stay of removal is vacated, and pending motions for a stay are dismissed as moot.
Reasoning: Consequently, the petition for review was denied, any previously granted stay of removal was vacated, and any pending motions for a stay were dismissed as moot.
Rejection of Successive Asylum Applications Based on U.S.-born Childrensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims for filing a successive asylum application due to having U.S.-born children may be rejected based on existing legal precedent.
Reasoning: Zhu's claim to file a successive asylum application due to her two U.S.-born children was rejected based on precedent.
Review of Board of Immigration Appeals Denialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the BIA's denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, assessing factual findings with the substantial evidence standard.
Reasoning: The court reviews BIA's denial for abuse of discretion, applying the substantial evidence standard to factual findings regarding country conditions.
Timeliness and Sufficiency of Evidence in Motions to Reopensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA may deny an untimely motion to reopen if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence of changed country conditions or a prima facie case for relief.
Reasoning: Zhu's untimely motion was denied, as the BIA found her supporting documentation insufficient to demonstrate changed country conditions or a prima facie case for relief.