07-5467-ag
Li v. Holder
BIA
A078 840 467
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 MEI FENG LI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 07-5467-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,*
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
23
*
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.
08232010-26
1 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey E. Baron, Baron, Mundie &
2 Shelkin, P.C., New York, New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
5 Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux,
6 Assistant Director; Briena L.
7 Strippoli, 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 Mei Feng Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks
17 review of a November 8, 2007, BIA order denying her motion
18 to reopen. In re Mei Feng Li, No. A078 840 467 (B.I.A. Nov.
19 8, 2007). Li’s motion to reopen was based on her claim that
20 she fears persecution on account of the birth of her U.S.
21 citizen children in violation of China’s family planning
22 policy. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth
23 in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.
24 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying her
25 motion to reopen. See id. at 168-72. Moreover, the BIA
26 reasonably declined to address some of Li’s evidence because
27 she failed to establish that it was unavailable at the time
28 of her merits hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see
29 also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).
08232010-26 2
1 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
08232010-26 3