He Lin v. Mukasey , 262 F. App'x 619 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 24, 2008
    No. 06-60830
    Summary Calendar                   Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    HE LIN
    Petitioner
    v.
    MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A72 782 530
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    He Lin, a native and citizen of China, has filed a pro se petition for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen
    removal proceedings as time- and number-barred. Lin specifically contends that
    he should be permitted to file a new asylum application pursuant to INA
    § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(D), which provides an exception to the one-
    year filing deadline for asylum applications.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 06-60830
    This   provision    governs    asylum    applications    only   and    is   not
    applicable to the reopening of removal proceedings.           INA § 208(a)(2)(D),
    8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(D). Rather, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) expressly applies to
    aliens under final orders of removal seeking to apply or reapply for asylum. The
    BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Lin could not avail himself of
    INA § 208(a)(2)(D) because the provision does not apply to aliens under final
    orders of removal. See Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 
    540 U.S. 461
    ,
    489 & n. 13 (2004).
    Because Lin does not assert that the BIA abused its discretion in finding
    that he did not meet the time and number limitation exceptions outlined in
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), we decline to consider the issue. See Thuri v. Ashcroft,
    
    380 F.3d 788
    , 793 (5th Cir. 2004).. Accordingly, Lin’s petition for review is
    DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-60830

Citation Numbers: 262 F. App'x 619

Judges: Jones, Per Curiam, Prado, Reavley

Filed Date: 1/24/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023