Hui Qing He v. Holder

07-5657-ag Wang v. Holder BIA A076 279 363 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. 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 19 th day of November, two thousand nine. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON. O. NEWMAN, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _________________________________________ 13 14 YI CHANG WANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 07-5657-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., * UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _________________________________________ * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 0 9 1 4 0 9 -2 9 1 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant 4 Attorney General; Francis W. Fraser, 5 Senior Litigation Counsel; T. Bo 6 Stanton, Attorney; Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, Civil 8 Division, United States Department 9 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 14 is DENIED. 15 Petitioner Yi Chang Wang, a native and citizen of the 16 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 5, 17 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re 18 Yi Chang Wang, No. A076 279 363 (B.I.A. Dec. 5, 2007). We 19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history in this case. 21 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 22 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 23 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of 24 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we 25 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial 26 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 27 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 The BIA did not err in denying Wang’s untimely motion 2 to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 3 § 1003.2(c)(2). Wang argues that the BIA erred by finding 4 that he failed to produce evidence demonstrating either 5 material changed country conditions sufficient to excuse the 6 untimely filing of his motion to reopen or his prima facie 7 eligibility for relief. However, these arguments fail 8 because we have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration 9 of evidence similar to that which Wang submitted and have 10 found no error in its conclusion that such evidence is 11 insufficient to establish either material changed country 12 conditions or a reasonable possibility of persecution. See 13 Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not 14 ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a 15 task largely within the discretion of the agency”); see also 16 Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) 17 (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as 18 “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to 19 consider time and again[,] . . . it may do so in summary 20 fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has 21 abused its discretion”). 22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 3 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 3 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 4 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 5 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 6 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 7 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 8 FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12 By:___________________________ 4