Bing Song Li v. Holder , 352 F. App'x 493 ( 2009 )

07-4947-ag
Yu v. Holder
BIA
A073 681 285
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19 th day of November, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON. O. NEWMAN,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 JI-HWA YU,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 07-4947-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., * UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ________________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is
automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General
Peter D. Keisler as respondent in this case.
0 9 1 4 0 9 -2 5
1 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, Louis & Adinolfi,
2 LLC, New York, New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
5 General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,
6 Senior Litigation Counsel; Julie M.
7 Iversen, Trial Attorney; Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, Civil
9 Division, United States Department of
10 Justice, Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Petitioner Ji-Hwa Yu, a native and citizen of the
17 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 9,
18 2007 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re
19 Ji-Hwa Yu, No. A073 681 285 (B.I.A. Oct. 9, 2007). We
20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
21 and procedural history in this case.
22 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
23 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
24 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of
25 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we
26 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial
27 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
2
1 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
2 The BIA did not err in denying Yu’s untimely motion to
3 reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R.
4 § 1003.2(c)(2). Yu argues that the BIA erred in finding
5 that she failed to demonstrate material changed country
6 conditions sufficient to excuse the untimely filing of her
7 motion to reopen. However, this argument fails because we
8 have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence
9 similar to that which Yu submitted and have found no error
10 in its conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to
11 establish either material changed country conditions or a
12 reasonable possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao,
13 546 F.3d at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not ourselves
14 attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task
15 largely within the discretion of the agency”); see also Wei
16 Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting
17 that while the BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft-
18 cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time
19 and again[,] . . . it may do so in summary fashion without a
20 reviewing court presuming that it has abused its
21 discretion”).
22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3
1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
3 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
5 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
6 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
7 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11 By:___________________________
4