Song Kou Jiang v. Holder ( 2010 )

07-5000-ag (L); 08-2085-ag (Con)
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
A076 280 366
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING
A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”).
A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 31 st day of August, two thousand ten.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________
SONG KOU JIANG,
Petitioner,
07-5000-ag (L);
v. 08-2085-ag (Con)
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gang Zhou, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General; John C. Cunningham, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Briena L.
Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United States
Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.
051710-17
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of
two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for
review are DENIED.
Petitioner Song Kou Jiang, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of: (1) an October
11, 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen, In re
Song Kou Jiang, No. A076 280 366 (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2007); and
(2) an April 18, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to
reconsider and reopen, In re Song Kou Jiang, No. A076 280 366
(B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity
with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or
reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d
232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Jin Ming Liu v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). When the BIA
considers relevant evidence of country conditions in
evaluating a motion, we review the BIA’s factual findings
under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v.
Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
The BIA did not err in denying Jiang’s untimely motions
to reopen or his motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C.
051710-17 -2-
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We have
previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence
similar to that which Jiang submitted and have found no error
in its conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to
establish either material changed country conditions excusing
the untimely filing of a motion to reopen or a reasonable
possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at
169-72; see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d
Cir. 2006). To the extent Jiang requests that we take
judicial notice of documents outside the administrative
record, that request is denied. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales,
494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2007).
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
that the Court previously granted in these petitions is
VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these
petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral
argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
051710-17 -3-