17-4071 Jiang v. Barr BIA A200 939 375 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 13th day of January, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 Circuit Judges.1 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 WEI HUA JIANG, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 17-4071 16 NAC 17 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 23 24 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 26 Kelting, Assistant Director; Sara 27 J. Bayram, Trial Attorney, Office 1The panel originally included Circuit Judge Christopher F. Droney, who fully retired from the court on December 31, 2019. This case is decided by the remaining two judges, consistent with section E(b) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Second Circuit. 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Wei Hua Jiang, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 4, 10 2017, decision of the BIA denying Jiang’s motion to reopen 11 his removal proceedings. In re Wei Hua Jiang, No. A 200 939 12 375 (B.I.A. Dec. 4, 2017). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 16 discretion and the BIA’s country conditions determination for 17 substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 18 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien seeking to reopen may 19 file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the 20 final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), 21 (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is undisputed that 22 Jiang’s motion to reopen filed in 2017 was untimely because 2 1 it was filed more than four years after the 2012 final 2 administrative decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 3 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). This ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals