12-3266 Liu v. Holder BIA A200 026 204 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 12th day of September, two thousand thirteen. 5 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 9 Chief Judge, 10 PETER W. HALL, 11 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 XING LIU, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 12-3266 19 NAC 20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Emily Anne 29 Radford, Assistant Director; Stephen 30 M. Elliott, Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 4 review is DENIED. 5 Xing Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic 6 of China, seeks review of an August 1, 2012, decision of the 7 BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Xing Liu, No. A200 8 026 204 (B.I.A. Aug. 1, 2012). We assume the parties’ 9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 10 of this case. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 12 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s 13 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. 14 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v. 15 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). When the BIA 16 considers relevant evidence of country conditions in 17 evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual 18 findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian 19 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 An alien may file a motion to reopen within 90 days of 21 the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1229a(c)(7)©; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Liu’s 2 1 motion was indisputably untimely because it was filed more 2 than three years after the agency’s final order of removal, 3 see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(I), there are no time 4 limitations for filing a motion to reopen if it is “based on 5 changed country conditions arising in the country of 6 nationality or the country to which removal has been 7 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available 8 and would not have been discovered or presented at the 9 previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see 10 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 11 The BIA did not err in finding that Liu’s decision to 12 join the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) in the United States 13 constituted a change in his personal circumstances, rather 14 than a change in country conditions sufficient to excuse the 15 untimely filing of his motion to reopen. See Yuen Jin v. 16 Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008). Nor did the BIA 17 err in finding that the evidence Liu submitted failed to 18 demonstrate a material change in country conditions because 19 that evidence demonstrated that the Chinese government had 20 continually banned the CDP and targeted its members since 21 the time of Liu’s last hearing and did not indicate that 22 conditions had worsened for similarly situated individuals. 3 1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Jian Hui Shao, 2 546 F.3d at 169. 3 As to Liu’s argument that he established changed 4 country conditions in China based on letters stating that 5 the Chinese government had become aware of his CDP 6 activities in the United States, the BIA reasonably declined 7 to credit the letters because they were unsworn and written 8 by interested witnesses who were not subject to cross- 9 examination. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 10 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); see also In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- 11 , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010) (finding that unsworn 12 letters from the alien’s friends and family were 13 insufficient to provide substantial support for the alien’s 14 claims because they were interested witnesses not subject to 15 cross-examination (citations omitted)), overruled on other 16 grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d 17 Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its 18 discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen as untimely. 19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)©. 20 21 22 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal in this 3 petition is DISMISSED as moot. 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5