10-4122-ag

Li v. Holder

BIA

A077 551 877

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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 17th day of November, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

ROGER J. MINER,

ROBERT D. SACK,

PETER W. HALL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________

SAIQING LI,

Petitioner, 

 - v.- 10-4122-ag

 NAC 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

_________________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, Law Offices of

Michael Brown, New York, New York. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant

Director; Annette Marie Wietecha,

Attorney, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, United

States Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C.
2

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREE, that the petition for review

is DENIED.

Petitioner Saiqing Li, a native and citizen of the

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the September

20, 2010, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen.

In re Saiqing Li, No. A077 551 877 (B.I.A. Sept. 20, 2010). 

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

and procedural history of the case.

The BIA’s denial of Li’s motion to reopen as untimely

was not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d

232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (providing that this

Court review the denial of reopening for abuse of

discretion). A motion to reopen generally must be filed no

later than 90 days after the date on which the final

administrative decision has been rendered in the proceedings

sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (2006);

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)(2011). There is no dispute that

Li’s 2010 motion was untimely, as the final administrative

decision was issued in 2003. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). That time

limitation, however, does not apply to a motion to reopen if

the motion is “based on changed circumstances arising in the

country of nationality or in the country to which

deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material

and was not available and could not have been discovered or

presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)(2011); see also 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)(2006). Li contends that her

participation, while in the United States, in the China

Democracy Party (“CDP”) constitutes such changed

circumstances.

Li’s political activities in the United States reflect

a self-induced change in personal circumstances and

therefore do not exempt her motion from the applicable bars. 

Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006).

Moreover, the BIA correctly concluded that Li failed to

demonstrate a material change in country conditions as the

evidence she submitted did not concern similarly-situated

individuals who were persecuted in China based on their
3

activities in the United States. Li asserted that the

treatment of CDP members in China had become significantly

worse over time. The evidence she submitted, however,

showed only that between Li’s 2003 removal proceedings and

the filing of her motion to reopen the Chinese government’s

treatment of CDP members had not changed or worsened. 

Indeed, the evidence that Li submitted showed that CDP

members have been targeted by the Chinese government as long

ago as 1999.

Because we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s

conclusion that Li failed to demonstrate changed country

conditions, we need not reach her argument that she

established prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS v.

Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for

oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second

Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk