19-1574 Ye v. Garland BIA A077 353 715 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 28th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHANG JU YE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1574 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, New York, NY 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 27 Assistant Director; Aliza B. 28 Alyeshmerni, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 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 Chang Ju Ye, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 6, 2019 7 decision of the BIA, denying his third motion to reopen his 8 removal proceedings. In re Chang Ju Ye, No. A077 353 715 9 (B.I.A. May 6, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity 10 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 11 We review the BIA’s decision to deny Ye’s third motion 12 to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. 13 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion 14 to reopen, Ye asserted that conditions for Christians had 15 worsened in China, which excused the untimely and number- 16 barred filing of his motion and demonstrated his prima facie 17 eligibility for asylum based on his practice of Christianity 18 in the United States. 19 It is undisputed that Ye’s 2018 motion was time and 20 number-barred because it was his third motion to reopen filed 21 more than 14 years after his removal order became final in 2 1 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 2 § 1003.2(c)(2). These time and number limits, however, do 3 not apply to a motion to reopen that “is based on changed 4 country conditions arising in the country of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals