Ling Dan Zhan, aka Ling Dan Ghan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0355n.06
No. 10-4095
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LING DAN ZHAN, aka Ling Dan Ghan,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM A FINAL ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS
Before: KEITH, MARTIN, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Ling Dan Zhan, a citizen of China from Fujian Province, petitions for
review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), denying her motion to reopen
her removal proceedings.
Zhan attempted to enter the United States with a fraudulent passport on September 17, 2003.
She applied for asylum on December 1, 2003, based on her parents’ practice of Falun Gong. An
immigration judge (IJ) denied her asylum application at a hearing on March 7, 2005, finding that
Zhan was not credible and had not met her burden of proof. The Board affirmed the IJ’s decision
on July 6, 2006, and Zhan did not file an appeal.
On January 4, 2010, Zhan filed a motion to reopen, and applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The basis for relief was
that Zhan had become a Protestant and that China had increased its persecution of unauthorized
house churches. Zhan included an affidavit, a letter from a relative who had been detained, and
various documents on religious freedom in China. The Board denied the motion to reopen as
untimely, reasoning that a change in personal circumstances was insufficient to obtain relief. The

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 10-4095
- 2 -
Board also found that Zhan had not presented credible evidence of increased persecution in Fujian
Province. The Board gave “very little weight” to the relative’s letter in light of the prior credibility
finding against Zhan. The Board found no change in the country’s conditions based upon a 2009
State Department report describing detention of Protestants in some areas of China. The Board
found that the 2009 report essentially reiterated a 2005 report. Zhan then filed a petition for review
in this Court.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s July 6, 2006, order affirming the IJ’s denial of
the asylum application because Zhan did not petition this Court for review of the Board’s order.
Although she subsequently filed a motion to reopen, the motion did not toll the thirty-day time
period within which she was required to petition for review of the Board’s first order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Prekaj v. INS, 384 F.3d 265, 267-68 (6th Cir. 2004).
On appeal, Zhan argues that the Board erred by requiring her to provide corroborating
evidence for the letter without also finding that police reports are routinely issued to detainees. She
also complains that the Board failed to explain why other documentary evidence did not establish
a change in the country’s conditions. Zhan argues that the 2008 Annual Report of the
Congressional-Executive Commission on China stated that Chinese government officials had called
for increased surveillance of religious groups; that China’s 2008 pre-Olympics campaign against
unregistered Protestant churches did not thereafter abate; and that churches in Fujian Province had
been targeted by public security personnel. Zhan also argues that the Annual Report of Persecution
by the Government on Christian House Churches within Mainland China, published by the
ChinaAid Association in January 2009, stated that the number of Christians persecuted in China
increased by 157 percent in 2008.
Upon review, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion. The Board properly
reasoned that Zhan’s motion to reopen did not satisfy the exception to the ninety-day filing
requirement because Zhan has not shown a change in China’s conditions. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485, 490 (6th Cir. 2009). First, the Board

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 10-4095
- 3 -
acted within its discretion by discrediting the relative’s letter in reliance on the prior credibility
finding against Zhan. See Zhang v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851, 855 (6th Cir. 2008). Zhan’s lack of any
attempt to rehabilitate her credibility also supports the Board’s finding. See id. The Board did not
discredit the letter based on the lack of corroborating evidence. Thus, we need not consider whether
it would be reasonable to expect an alien to provide a copy of a police report. See Dorosh v.
Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004).
Second, the Board had no obligation to discuss every report and document that Zhan filed.
See Zhang, 543 F.3d at 854-55. The Board was, however, obligated to provide a reasoned decision,
which it did. See id. Regardless, the other reports did not constitute material evidence that Zhan
faced an individualized risk of persecution from changed country conditions. See Harchenko v. INS,
379 F.3d 405, 410 (6th Cir. 2004). The Congressional-Executive Commission report quoted a single
official as calling for oversight of religious leaders, religious activity, and sites of worship. This
statement, at most, constitutes an attempt to intimidate the general population. See id.; Mikhailevitch
v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir. 1998). The report’s discussion on the continuance of the pre-
Olympics campaign did not include any incidents in Fujian Province. While the report later
mentioned the targeting of churches in Fujian, this was limited to a particular movement known as
the “Local Church.” Zhan does not allege that she has been or would become involved in the Local
Church. Rather, her affidavit and other documents show an affiliation with the United Methodist
Church. Similarly, the ChinaAid Association report referenced incidents of persecution in various
provinces and regions of China, but had no discussion of any persecution in Fujian Province. Thus,
Zhan has not shown an individualized risk of persecution from current country conditions in China.
Moreover, she has not established a change in the country’s conditions. See Bi Feng Liu, 560
F.3d at 491. A change in personal circumstances, without evidence of a change in the country’s
conditions, is insufficient to warrant reopening. Id. at 492.
The petition for review is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --