18-777 Lan v. Barr BIA Sponzo, IJ A078 205 781 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 21st day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LI LAN, AKA LIN LINGLI 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-777 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 27 Assistant Director; Brooke M. 28 Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 06152016-10 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 in part and DISMISSED in part. 5 Petitioner Li Lan, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2018, BIA 7 decision that affirmed the April 24, 2017, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 9 removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 10 and cancellation of removal. In re Li Lan, No. A078 205 781 11 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2018), aff’g No. A078 205 781 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y. City Apr. 24, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 15 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 16 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 17 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination 18 that Lan’s asylum application was untimely and that she did 19 not filed within a reasonable time of her changed personal 20 circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). 21 And the BIA did not err in declining to consider her argument 22 that changed country conditions excused the untimely filing 23 of her application because she did not raise that argument 2 06282019-7 1 before the IJ. See Prabhudial v. Holder, 780 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals