07-4501-ag
Shi v. Holder
BIA
A079 402 962
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 15 th day of March, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 YUPING SHI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 07-4501-ag
18 NAC
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, *
22 Respondent.
23 _________________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General
Peter D. Keisler as respondent in this case.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
2 General; John W. Blakeley, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; Kelly J. Walls,
4 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioner Yuping Shi, a native and citizen of the
13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 28,
14 2007, order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider and
15 reopen. In re Yuping Shi, No. A079 402 962 (B.I.A. Sept.
16 28, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.
20 2008); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.
21 2006). We confine our review to the BIA’s denial of Shi’s
22 motion to reconsider and reopen because we lack jurisdiction
23 to consider her challenges to the immigration judge’s
24 (“IJ’s”) underlying adverse credibility determination. See
25 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Malvoisin v. INS, 268 F.3d
2
1 74, 75 (2d Cir. 2001) (“[C]ompliance with the time limit for
2 filing a petition to review the BIA’s final order is a
3 strict jurisdictional prerequisite.”); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S.
4 Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001).
5 A. Motion to Reconsider
6 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shi’s
7 motion to reconsider because she failed to specify errors of
8 fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision as required by
9 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439
10 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). In fact, in her motion to
11 reconsider the BIA’s February 2007 decision upholding an
12 IJ’s August 2005 decision, Shi’s only challenges were to a
13 different IJ’s March 2003 adverse credibility determination
14 that the BIA had vacated in an earlier appeal.
15 B. Motion to Reopen
16 The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying
17 Shi’s motion to reopen because it reasonably determined that
18 she failed to establish her prima facie eligibility for
19 relief from removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05
20 (1988). This Court has previously reviewed the agency’s
21 consideration of evidence similar to that which Shi relied
22 on in this case and concluded that the agency does not err
3
1 in finding that such evidence does not demonstrate a
2 reasonable possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v.
3 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 158-73 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that
4 the BIA reasonably concluded that the family planning policy
5 in Fujian province is not implemented through the use of
6 forced sterilizations but through the use of economic
7 rewards and penalties that do not necessarily amount to
8 “physical or mental coercion”).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
21
4