Lei Xia v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Per Curiam OPINION filed : The petition for review is DENIED, decision not for publication. Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge; Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Circuit Judge and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0021n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LEI XIA, aka Yutian Xia,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Jan 15, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Lei Xia, a citizen of China, petitions through counsel for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an order of an
immigration judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for
Xia was born in China in 1962. He entered this country in 2001 and overstayed his visa.
In 2006, he was granted relief in the form of voluntary departure. However, he did not depart as
he had agreed. Four years later, Xia moved to reopen his proceeding to apply for asylum,
arguing that he had begun practicing Falun Gong in 2010, and that China was now persecuting
Falun Gong practitioners more than it had at the time of his original removal hearing. The IJ
found that Xia had demonstrated only a change in his personal circumstances and not a change in
country conditions and, therefore, denied the motion as untimely. The IJ also stated that the
motion would be denied as a matter of discretion, due to Xia’s failure to voluntarily depart in
Xia v. Holder
2006. The BIA agreed that the motion was untimely and dismissed Xia’s appeal, without
reaching the issue of whether he merited discretionary relief.
Xia repeats his arguments before this court. He argues that he will be punished if he
returns to China because the government has learned of his practice of Falun Gong. He also
argues that conditions have worsened in China for Falun Gong practitioners since the time of his
original removal proceeding. In support of this argument, he points to articles indicating that the
government of China arrested numerous Falun Gong practitioners prior to the 2008 Olympic
A denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615, 625 (6th Cir. 2004). We find no abuse of
discretion in this case. A motion to reopen is required to be filed within ninety days of a final
order of removal, unless it is based on changed country conditions; if a motion filed more than
ninety days after the final order of removal does not show changed country conditions, it is
untimely. Haddad v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 515, 517-18 (6th Cir. 2006). The IJ and BIA properly
found that Xia failed to demonstrate that conditions had changed for the worse for Falun Gong
practitioners since his 2006 hearing. See Pllumi v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 642 F.3d
155, 161 (3d Cir. 2011). Proof that a preexisting condition has continued is insufficient. Kucana
v. Holder, 603 F.3d 394, 397 (7th Cir. 2010). The record shows that persecution of Falun Gong
practitioners has existed in China since before 2006. The increase in the number of arrests of
Falun Gong practitioners prior to the 2008 Olympic Games does not help Xia’s case, as he didn’t
start practicing Falun Gong until 2010. The IJ aptly quoted Chen v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 758, 760
(7th Cir. 2007) (“It makes no sense to allow an alien who manages to elude capture by the
immigration authorities for years after he has been ordered to leave the country . . . to use this
Xia v. Holder
interval of unauthorized presence in the United States to manufacture a case for asylum”), in
denying the motion.
Because there was no abuse of discretion in the finding that this motion to reopen was
untimely, we deny the petition for review.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?