08-2930-ag
Li v. Holder
BIA
A073 508 034
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 27th day of October, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 FANG MEI LI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 08-2930-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 Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
08232010-30
1 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, Louis &
2 Adinolfi, LLC, New York, New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant
5 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina,
6 Jr., Assistant Director; Joanna L.
7 Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, United
9 States Department of Justice,
10 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 Fang Mei Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks
17 review of a May 30, 2008, BIA order denying her motion to
18 reopen. In re Fang Mei Li, No. A073 508 034 (B.I.A. May 30,
19 2008). Li’s motion to reopen was based on her claim that
20 she fears involuntary insertion of an intrauterine device
21 (“IUD”) on account of the birth of her U.S. citizen child.
22 For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian
23 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we
24 find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Li did not
25 demonstrate a change in country conditions sufficient to
26 excuse the untimely filing of her motion to reopen. See id.
27 at 168-72. Nor did the BIA err in finding that Li failed to
28 demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for relief because
08232010-30 2
1 although the evidence she submitted reflected that
2 sterilization and the use of an IUD are mandatory for
3 certain individuals, it did not indicate that those who fail
4 to comply are forcibly sterilized or inserted with an IUD.
5 See id. at 172. Subsequent to the BIA’s decision in this
6 case, we found permissible the BIA’s conclusion that an
7 involuntary IUD insertion is not a per se ground for asylum.
8 See Xia Fan Huang v. Holder, 591 F.3d 124, 129-30 (2d Cir.
9 2010).
10 Finally, contrary to Li’s contention, the BIA did not
11 err in concluding that she failed to provide a valid basis
12 for equitably tolling the time limitation applicable to her
13 motion to reopen because she did not assert that
14 extraordinary circumstances prevented her from timely filing
15 her motion. See Iavorski v. U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 129 (2d
16 Cir. 2000) (“Equitable tolling applies as a matter of
17 fairness where a [party] has been prevented in some
18 extraordinary way from exercising his rights.”) (internal
19 quotation marks and citation omitted).
20 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
23 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
08232010-30 3
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
08232010-30 4