13-652
Liu v. Holder
BIA
A097 957 381
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 5th day of September, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YOU ZHONG LIU, AKA YOUZHONG LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-652
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Donglai Yang, The Law Offices of
24 Donglai Yang, LLC, New Orleans, LA.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
28 Director; Yedidya Cohen, Trial
29 Attorney; Rebecca E. Dames, Law
30 Clerk, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States Department
32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 You Zhong Liu, a native and citizen of
6 China, seeks review of a January 22, 2013, decision of the
7 BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings.
8 In re You Zhong Liu, No. A097 957 381 (B.I.A. Jan. 22,
9 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
10 underlying facts 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 is required to file a motion to reopen no later
15 than 90 days after the date on which the final
16 administrative decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8
17 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although there is no dispute that
18 Liu’s 2012 motion to reopen was untimely because the BIA
19 issued a final order of removal in 2007, the time limitation
20 does not apply to a motion to reopen “based on changed
21 country conditions arising in the country of nationality . .
22 . if such evidence is material and was not available and
2
1 would not have been discovered or presented at the previous
2 proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
3 However, Liu’s religious practice in the United States
4 constitutes a changed personal circumstance, which is
5 insufficient to excuse the untimely filing of his motion to
6 reopen. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 273-74 (2d
7 Cir. 2006). Contrary to Liu’s contention, if more than 90
8 days have passed since the order of removal, an alien
9 seeking to file a successive asylum application must first
10 show changed country conditions. See Yuen Jin v. Mukasey,
11 538 F.3d 143, 151-52 (2d Cir. 2008).
12 Moreover, Liu’s evidence does not compel the conclusion
13 that China’s treatment of Christians has worsened since the
14 time of his merits hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
15 (BIA’s factual findings are “conclusive unless any
16 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
17 contrary”); In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A.
18 2007). The recent country reports submitted to show changed
19 conditions with respect to the treatment of Christians do
20 not materially differ from the reports submitted at the time
21 of Liu’s hearing. Finally, as Liu did not include his
22 family planning claim in the asylum application he attached
3
1 to his motion to reopen, the BIA properly declined to
2 consider it. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
3
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
4