10-4328 (L) Gao v. Sessions BIA A095 710 413 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 11th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MEI MI GAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 10-4328 (L), 17 16-3314 (Con) 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jeffery R. 28 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Craig A. Newell, Jr., Trial 30 Attorney Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 6 decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 7 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for 8 review are DENIED. 9 Petitioner Mei Mi Gao, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of August 31, 2016, 11 and September 30, 2010, decisions of the BIA denying her 12 motions to reopen her removal proceedings to apply for asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mei Mi Gao, No. A095 710 413 15 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2016, Sept. 30, 2010). We assume the 16 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 17 history in this case. 18 We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of Gao’s motions to 19 reopen for abuse of discretion, and the BIA’s factual findings 20 regarding country conditions under the substantial evidence 21 standard. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d 22 Cir. 2008); Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). 2 1 It is undisputed that both of Gao’s 2010 and 2016 motions 2 to reopen were untimely, and that her second motion was number 3 barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 4 § 1003.2(c)(2). Although these limitations do not apply to 5 motions to reopen in order to seek asylum “based on changed 6 country conditions” since the time ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals