18-3 Lee v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A076 027 780 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 3rd day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SIEW WAI LEE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph A. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 27 Assistant Director; Nancy Kwang 28 Canter, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Siew Wai Lee, a native and citizen of 6 Malaysia, seeks review of a December 22, 2017, decision of 7 the BIA affirming a June 27, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Lee’s motion to reopen. In re Siew Wai 9 Lee, No. A 076 027 780 (B.I.A. Dec. 22, 2017), aff’g No. A 076 10 027 780 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Jun. 27, 2017). We assume the 11 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 12 history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 14 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 15 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 I. Changed Country Conditions 17 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 18 an abuse of discretion but review any finding regarding 19 changed country conditions for substantial evidence. Jian 20 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 21 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one 2 1 motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which 2 the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). It is 4 undisputed that Lee’s 2017 motion to reopen was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals