Li Hua Li v. Holder , 563 F. App'x 863 ( 2014 )

12-4052
Li v. Holder
BIA
A079 307 044
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 A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 2nd day of May, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
LI HUA LI,
Petitioner,
v. 12-4052
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; Holly M. Smith, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Jane T.
Schaffner, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Li Hua Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a September 13, 2012
decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Li
Hua Li, No. A079 307 044 (B.I.A. Sept. 13, 2012). We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of this case.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s
admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v.
Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). When the BIA
considers relevant evidence of country conditions in
evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual
findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian
Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
An alien must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of
the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Li’s
2
motion was indisputably untimely because it was filed more
than seven years after the agency’s final order of removal,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), there is no time
limitation for filing a motion to reopen if it is “based on
changed country conditions arising in the country of
nationality or the country to which removal has been
ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available
and would not have been discovered or presented at the
previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see
also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
The BIA did not err in finding that Li failed to
demonstrate a material change in country conditions excusing
the untimely filing of her motion because her individualized
evidence demonstrating that authorities had discovered her
religious activities was entitled to little weight given the
underlying adverse credibility determination, see Qin Wen
Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007).
Further, the generalized country conditions evidence that
she submitted did not establish that conditions in China had
worsened such that individuals similarly situated to Li
faced persecution, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see
also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169. Accordingly, the BIA
3
did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to
reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4