17-1829 Yan Rong Liu v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A075 605 166 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 4th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YAN RONG LIU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1829 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Claire L. Workman, Senior 27 Litigation Counsel; John B. Holt, 28 Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 32 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 Yan Rong Liu, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 18, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a March 22, 2016, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu’s motion to reopen 9 her removal proceedings. In re Yan Rong Liu, No. A 075 605 10 166 (B.I.A. May 18, 2017), aff’g No. A 075 605 166 (Immig. 11 Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 22, 2016). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 13 in this case. 14 We review the agency’s denial of Liu’s motion to reopen 15 for abuse of discretion, and review the agency’s factual 16 findings regarding country conditions under the substantial 17 evidence standard. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 18 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 It is undisputed that Liu’s 2015 motion to reopen was 20 untimely because her removal order became final in 2001. 21 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)(setting 90-day filing 22 period for motions to reopen); 8 C.F.R. 2 1 § 1003.23(b)(1)(same). Although this time limitation does 2 not apply if the motion to reopen is “based on changed 3 country conditions” since the time of the original hearing, 4 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals