17-1470, 18-1834 Guan v. Barr BIA A072 765 896 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of October, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SHI HUI GUAN, Petitioner, 17-1470 v. 18-1834 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER IN 17-1470: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY. FOR PETITIONER IN 18-1834: Ning Ye, Flushing, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Katherine A. Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review are CONSOLIDATED and DENIED. Petitioner Shi Hui Guan, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the April 26, 2017, and May 29, 2018, BIA decisions denying his motions to reconsider and reopen filed in his exclusion proceedings. In re Shi Hui Guan, No. A072 765 896 (B.I.A. Apr. 26, 2017, May 29, 2018). The Government moves to consolidate the petitions over Guan’s opposition. We conclude that consolidation is appropriate because Guan’s petitions seek review of the BIA’s denial of related motions to reconsider and reopen filed in his exclusion proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao 2 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Docket 17-1470 Guan moved to reopen his exclusion proceedings to present evidence of his claimed fear of persecution based on the births of his children in the United States purportedly in violation of China’s population control program. It is undisputed that Guan’s motion to reopen was untimely and number barred because it was his second motion to reopen filed more than 21 years after he was ordered deported. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time and numerical limitations do not apply if the motion is to reopen proceedings in order to apply for asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the country ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals