Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01074/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent
Xiaolan Shi
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Michael B. Mukasey, has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1074

___________

Xiaolan Shi, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey,1 *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2008

Filed: February 12, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Xiaolan Shi, a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen or reconsider the BIA’s

earlier decision affirming an immigration judge’s removal order and denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. After

carefully reviewing the record, we deny the petition.

Appellate Case: 07-1074 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2008 Entry ID: 3401652
-2-

We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or

reconsider, see Kanyi v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1087, 1089 (8th Cir. 2005) (motion to

reopen); Esenwah v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 2004) (motion to

reconsider), without examining the merits of the underlying removal order, see

Raffington v. INS, 340 F.3d 720, 721, 724 (8th Cir. 2003). 

We conclude the BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Shi’s

September 27, 2006 motion to reopen or reconsider the BIA’s June 16, 2006 final

order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30

days of final removal order); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be

filed within 90 days of final removal order). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion

in finding that the exception to the time limit for changed country conditions did not

apply. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (time limitation does not apply to motion to

reopen to apply for asylum or withholding of removal based on changed

circumstances arising in country to which alien is to be removed, if evidence of

change is material and could not have been discovered or presented at previous

hearing). The evidence Shi submitted with her motion--a letter from her husband

dated “July 24 night” and stating that police had inquired as to Shi’s whereabouts--

was insufficient to establish changed conditions in China: the letter did not bear a

valid date or give any indication as to when it was received by Shi, and it did not

explain what information the police had wanted or when they had made the inquiries.

Cf. Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632-33 (5th Cir. 2005) (BIA did not abuse

its discretion in refusing to reopen deportation proceedings based on untimely nature

of motion and insufficient evidence--lacking in detail--that country conditions had

materially changed). Shi’s newly asserted claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

is not reviewable. See Etchu-Njang v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 577, 581-84 (8th Cir. 2005)

(alien must present claim of ineffective assistance to BIA, either on direct

administrative appeal or in motion to reopen, before he may obtain judicial review

claim).

Appellate Case: 07-1074 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2008 Entry ID: 3401652
-3-

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1074 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2008 Entry ID: 3401652