17-2117 Yu v. Barr BIA A072 485 206 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 8th day of January, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HO MAI YU, AKA HE MEI YU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2117 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon; Deborah 24 Niedermeyer, Of Counsel, Law 25 Office of Yee Ling Poon, New 26 York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Keith I. 30 McManus, Assistant Director; 31 Maarja T. Luhtaru, Trial Attorney, 32 Office of Immigration Litigation, 33 United States Department of 34 Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Petitioner Ho Mai Yu, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 13, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA, denying her motion to reopen. In re Ho 8 Mai Yu, No. A072 485 206 (B.I.A. June 13, 2017). We assume 9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 10 procedural history in this case. 11 The applicable standards of review are well established. 12 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 13 2008). In her motion to reopen, Yu asserted that conditions 14 for Christians had worsened in her home province of Zhejiang, 15 China excusing the untimely and number barred filing of her 16 motion and demonstrating her prima facie eligibility for 17 asylum based on her practice of Christianity. 18 It is undisputed that Yu’s 2017 motion was untimely and 19 number barred because it was her second motion to reopen 20 filed more than 12 years after her exclusion order became 21 final in 2004. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 22 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time and number 23 limitations for filing a motion to reopen do not apply if 2 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals