Xicheng Zhou v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XICHENG ZHOU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73984
Agency No. A078-750-327
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Xi-Cheng Zhou appeals the BIA’s decision affirming the dismissal of his
second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
FEB 17 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhou’s second motion to
reopen. Zhou failed to show that the enforcement of family planning policies in
his village became more stringent since his 2001 hearing. See Feng Gui Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2009). The letters from the Yingqian District
Resident Committee and Yingqian Village Family Planning Office do not state that
there has been a change in policy or practice after 2001. See id. Further, they are
not material to Zhou’s situation, because they do not address how the family
planning rules apply when one of the spouses is a U.S. citizen. See id. at 988–89.
Neither the affidavit by Xiqiu Zou nor Zhou’s statement in his affidavit regarding
the information he obtained from Xiqiu Zou are material, because there is no
indication that Xiqiu Zou’s children were born outside of China or that his wife is a
citizen of a foreign country. See id. at 986. Furthermore, neither the 2008 Country
Report from the State Department nor the Congressional-Executive 2009 Annual
Report, to which this court gives “special weight,” Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594
F.3d 701, 705 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010), demonstrate a change in conditions in China
since March 23, 2001. Instead, both reports demonstrate a continuation of
previous family planning policies in China.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --