13-3165
Liu v. Holder
BIA
A099 683 460
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 29th day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 XIU YA LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-3165
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Greg D. Mack, Senior
08152014-B1-5
1 Litigation Counsel; Lisa M. Damiano,
2 Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Xiu Ya Liu, a native and citizen of China,
12 seeks review of a July 30, 2013, decision of the BIA,
13 denying her motion to reopen. In re Xiu Ya Liu, No. A099
14 683 460 (B.I.A. July 30, 2013). We assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
16 of this case.
17 The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
19 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Liu filed a motion to reopen based,
20 in part, on her claim that she fears forced sterilization
21 because she has had more than one child in the United
22 States, which she contends violates China’s population
23 control program. We find no error in the BIA’s
24 determination that Liu failed to demonstrate either
25 materially changed country conditions excusing the untimely
08152014-B1-5 2
1 filing of her motion or her prima facie eligibility for
2 relief on this ground. See id. at 158-72.
3 Liu also moved to reopen based on her claim that she
4 fears persecution in China on account of her conversion to
5 Christianity. We find no error in the BIA’s determination
6 that she failed to demonstrate her prima facie eligibility
7 for relief based on her religious practice. See id.
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending
10 request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
11 accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
12 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
17
08152014-B1-5 3