12-4653
Li v. Holder
BIA
A097 602 610
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 3rd day of March, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MEISHU LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-4653
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; William C. Peachey,
27 Assistant Director, Daniel E.
28 Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
32
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Meishu Li, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of a November 2, 2012 decision of the BIA
7 denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. In re
8 Meishu Li, No. A097 602 610 (B.I.A. Nov. 2, 2012). We
9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
10 and procedural history in this case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
13 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An alien seeking to reopen
14 proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later than 90
15 days after the date on which the final administrative
16 decision was rendered. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). These
17 limitations do not apply, however, to a motion “based on
18 changed country conditions arising in the country of
19 nationality . . . if such evidence is material and was not
20 available and would not have been discovered or presented at
21 the previous hearing.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see
22 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
23
2
1 Li does not dispute that her motion was both time and
2 number barred, but argues that the BIA erred in finding that
3 China’s increased suppression of political dissent,
4 particularly the suppression of internet dissent, did not
5 constitute changed country conditions. This claim lacks
6 merit. The BIA reasonably found that Li’s political
7 activities in this country constituted changed personal
8 circumstances, which are insufficient to excuse the untimely
9 filing of her motion to reopen. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
10 437 F.3d 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 Moreover, Li's contention that conditions in China have
12 changed since her merits hearing is unpersuasive. See In re
13 S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (“In determining
14 whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen
15 demonstrates a material change in country conditions that
16 would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence
17 of country conditions submitted with the motion to those
18 that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”).
19 The record shows that China has suppressed political
20 dissent, including online dissent, since well before Li’s
21 merits hearing in 2005.
22
3
1 Contrary to Li’s contention, the BIA’s treatment of her
2 unauthenticated evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
3 Although the BIA may err in rejecting evidence solely based
4 on a failure to authenticate pursuant to regulations, see
5 Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 404-05
6 (2d Cir. 2005), Li failed to authenticate the evidence from
7 China in any manner. See Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Dep’t
8 of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (the weight
9 accorded to evidence lies largely within the agency’s
10 discretion).
11 Finally, given that she did not demonstrate changed
12 country conditions, it is not necessary to address Li’s
13 claim that she established her prima facie eligibility for
14 relief.
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
17 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
18 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
19 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
20 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
21
22
4
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
5