17-2731 Gao v. Barr BIA Nelson, IJ A073 131 789 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. 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 22nd day of February, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BIN GAO, Petitioner, v. 17-2731 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Janette L. Allen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Bin Gao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 22, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a February 24, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Gao’s motion to reopen. In re Bin Gao, No. A073 131 789 (B.I.A. Aug. 22, 2017), aff’g No. A073 131 789 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 24, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and considered whether its conclusion regarding changed country conditions is supported by substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Gao moved to reopen in order to apply for asylum, asserting that he had converted to Christianity in the United States and that worsening conditions for Christians in China excused the untimely filing of his motion. It is undisputed that Gao’s 2017 motion to reopen was untimely as it was filed nearly twenty years after his 1997 deportation order. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), 1003.23(b)(1). However, the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals