17-1607 Haiou Hu v. Sessions BIA A097 976 136 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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 24th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAIOU HU, AKA HAI OU DONG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1607 17 NAC 18 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 29 Assistant Director; Kristin 1 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Haiou Hu, a native and citizen of the People’s 11 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 28, 2017, decision 12 of the BIA, denying her motion to reopen. In re Haiou Hu, 13 No. A097 976 136 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2017). We assume the 14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 15 history in this case. 16 The applicable standards of review are well established. 17 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 18 2008). In her motion to reopen, Haiou Hu asserted that 19 conditions for unauthorized religious groups had worsened in 20 China excusing the untimely and number barred filing of her 21 motion and demonstrating her prima facie eligibility for 22 asylum based on her practice of I Kuan Tao in the United 23 States. 2 1 It is undisputed that Haiou Hu’s 2016 motion was untimely 2 and number barred because it was her second motion to reopen 3 filed more than eight years after her removal order became 4 final in 2008. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 5 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time and number 6 limitations for filing a motion to reopen do not apply if 7 reopening is sought to apply ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals