15-4031 Wu v. Whitaker BIA A076 100 741 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 18th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNIS JACOBS, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 XIN ZHAO WU, AKA XIN ZAO WU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 15-4031 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28 Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Rachel L. Browning, Trial 06152016-10 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 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 Xin Zhao Wu, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 23, 12 2015, BIA decision denying his motion to reopen his removal 13 proceedings. In re Xin Zhao Wu, No. A076 100 741 (B.I.A. 14 Nov. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15 underlying facts and procedural 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). Wu moved to reopen his removal proceedings to present 19 evidence of his claimed fear of persecution based on the 20 births of his children in the United States purportedly in 21 violation of China’s population control program and based on 22 his practice of Christianity. 23 It is undisputed that Wu’s motion to reopen was 24 untimely because it was filed more than fifteen years after 25 an immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia. See 2 07102018-4 1 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The 2 time limitation does not apply if the motion is to reopen 3 proceedings in order to apply for asylum “based on changed 4 country conditions arising in the country of nationality ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals