Opinion
No. 08-3434-ag.
July 7, 2009.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Benjamin J. Zeitlin, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
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.
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Si Ou Hsu, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a June 23, 2008 order of the BIA, denying his third motion to reopen and affirming the June 7, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Robert D. Weisel, which denied his second motion to reopen. In re Si Ou Hsu, No. A073 180 659 (B.I.A. June 23, 2008), aff'g No. A073 180 659 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 7, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We review the agency's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. AH v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Where the agency considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the agency's factual findings under the substantial 2 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). We find that the agency did not err in denying Hsu's untimely motions to reopen.
Hsu argues that the BIA erred by relying on its precedential decisions to conclude that he failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions or his 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 a reasonable possibility 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").
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).