11-1370-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
A076 515 153
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 4th day of June, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 SHING LIN,AKA SHEN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-1370-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; David Bernal, Assistant
27 Director; Jesse M. Bless, Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, Civil Division, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 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 Shing Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
6 of a March 22, 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to
7 reopen his removal proceedings. In re Shing Lin, No. A076
8 515 153 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2011). We assume the parties’
9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
10 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). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
14 by denying Lin’s 2010 motion to reopen as untimely, as he
15 filed it nearly eight years after his final order of
16 removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
17 Although the time limits on motions to reopen may be
18 excused when the movant demonstrates changed country
19 conditions, id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), as the BIA concluded,
20 only Lin’s personal circumstances had changed, as his claim
21 was based on the fact that he joined the Chinese Democratic
22 Party in 2008 while in the United States, see Wei Guang Wang
23 v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, the BIA
2
1 reasonably declined to give weight to Lin’s evidence. See
2 Jian Hui Shao v. BIA, 465 F.3d 497, 501 (2d Cir. 2006)
3 (holding that this Court generally defers to the agency
4 regarding the weight of evidence).
5 The BIA also reasonably determined that Lin failed to
6 demonstrate any change in China, because the evidence showed
7 that current conditions were similar to those at the time of
8 his original hearing. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec.
9 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (“In determining whether evidence
10 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material
11 change in country conditions that would justify reopening,
12 we compare the evidence of country conditions submitted with
13 the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits
14 hearing below.”).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
17 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
18 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
19 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
20 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
21 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
22 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
23 FOR THE COURT:
24 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
25
26
3