16-4277 Shi Wu Lin v. Sessions BIA A070 902 764 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 June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHI WU LIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4277 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jay Ho Lee, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Virginia L. Gordon, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 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 Shi Wu Lin, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 5, 7 2016, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen as 8 untimely and number barred. In re Shi Wu Lin, No. A070 902 9 764 (B.I.A. Dec. 5, 2016). We assume the parties’ 10 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 11 history in this case. 12 The applicable standards of review are well established. 13 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 14 2008). It is undisputed that Shi Wu Lin’s 2016 motion to 15 reopen was untimely and number barred because it was filed 16 nearly nineteen years after his removal order became final 17 and was his third motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). These 19 limitations are excused if reopening is sought to apply for 20 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the 21 country of nationality or the country to which removal has 22 been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 23 available and would not have been discovered or presented 2 1 at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 3 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals