Liang Wei Shao v. Holder

09-3512-ag Shao v. Holder BIA A073 568 657 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 31 st day of March, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 ______________________________________ 13 14 LIANG WEI SHAO, 15 Petitioner, 16 09-3512-ag 17 v. NAC 18 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 ______________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Galab B. Dhungana, New York, New 25 York. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation; Lance L. 31 Jolley, Trial Attorney, Office of 32 Immigration Litigation, Civil 33 Division, United States Department 34 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, Liang Wei Shao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 20, 2009, 7 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal 8 proceedings. In re Liang Wei Shao, No. A 073 568 657 9 (B.I.A. July 20, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity 10 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the 11 case. 12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 13 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 14 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of 15 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we 16 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial 17 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 18 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 An alien may only file one motion to reopen and must do 20 so within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 21 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is 22 indisputable that Shao’s motion to reopen was untimely. 23 However, the time limitation does not apply if the alien 24 establishes materially changed circumstances arising in the 2 1 country of nationality. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 2 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 3 In denying Shao’s motion to reopen, the BIA found that 4 he failed to demonstrate a change in China’s enforcement of 5 the family planning policy. Shao does not address this 6 finding, and even concedes that the evidence he submitted 7 demonstrated only an ongoing policy of persecution. Because 8 Shao failed to explain how his evidence demonstrated a 9 change in circumstances arising in China, the BIA did not 10 abuse its discretion in denying Shao’s untimely motion to 11 reopen. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 12 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). For these same reasons, Shao’s due 13 process claim is entirely without merit. See Li Hua Lin v. 14 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 104-05 (2d Cir. 2006) 15 (noting that due process “requires that an applicant receive 16 a full and fair hearing which provides a meaningful 17 opportunity to be heard.”). 18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 20 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 21 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 22 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 23 FOR THE COURT: 24 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 25 26 3