From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lin v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 23, 2009
327 F. App'x 297 (2d Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 07-4548-ag.

June 23, 2009.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; John D. Williams, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. JON O. NEWMAN and Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.


SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Xue Chai Lin, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a September 27, 2007 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Xue Chai Lin, No. A95 170 244 (B.I.A. Sep. 27, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Where the BIA considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). We find that the BIA did not err in denying Lin's untimely motion to reopen or in finding her ineligible to file a successive asylum application.

Lin argues that the BIA erred in concluding that she failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions sufficient to excuse the time limitation for filing her motion to reopen or her prima facie eligibility for relief. However, these arguments fail where we have previously reviewed the BIA's consideration of similar evidence in the context of an untimely motion to reopen and have found no error in its conclusion that such evidence was insufficient to establish material changed country conditions or an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. See id. at 169-72 (noting that "[w]e do not ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the agency"); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as "the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] . . . it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion").

Similarly, the BIA's determination that Lin was ineligible to file a successive asylum application was not in error. see Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).


Summaries of

Lin v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 23, 2009
327 F. App'x 297 (2d Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Lin v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:XUE CHAI LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., U.S. Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jun 23, 2009

Citations

327 F. App'x 297 (2d Cir. 2009)