Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure *

43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is

automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General

Peter D. Keisler as the respondent in this case.

091409-24

07-4884-ag

Lin v. Holder

BIA

A077 913 582

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS

FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1

AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A

LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST

ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:

“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER

TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED

BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE

ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE

DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

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

4 New York, on the 19 day of November, two thousand nine. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 Chief Judge,

9 JON. O. NEWMAN, 

10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _________________________________________

13

14 KAN YUN LIN,

15 Petitioner, 

16

17 v. 07-4884-ag

18 NAC

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES *

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 ________________________________________
2

1 FOR PETITIONER: Yimin Chen, New York, New York.

2

3 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant

4 Attorney General; Susan K. Houser,

5 Senior Litigation Counsel; W. Daniel

6 Shieh, Trial Attorney; Office of

7 Immigration Litigation, Civil

8 Division, United States Department

9 of Justice, Washington, D.C.

10

11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

14 is DENIED. 

15 Petitioner Kan Yun Lin, a native and citizen of the

16 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 5,

17 2007 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re

18 Kan Yun Lin, No. A077 913 582 (B.I.A. Oct. 5, 2007). We

19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

20 and procedural history in this case.

21 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

22 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d

23 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of

24 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we

25 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial

26 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d

27 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 
3

1 The BIA did not err in denying Lin’s untimely motion to

2 reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 

3 § 1003.2(c)(2). Lin argues that the BIA erred by finding

4 that she failed to produce evidence demonstrating either

5 material changed country conditions sufficient to excuse the

6 untimely filing of her motion to reopen or her prima facie

7 eligibility for relief from removal. However, these

8 arguments fail because we have previously reviewed the BIA’s

9 consideration of evidence similar to that which Lin

10 submitted and have found no error in its conclusion that

11 such evidence is insufficient to establish either material

12 changed country conditions or a reasonable possibility of

13 persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72 (noting

14 that “[w]e do not ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in

15 record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the

16 agency”); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275

17 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider

18 evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it]

19 is asked to consider time and again[,] . . . it may do so in

20 summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it

21 has abused its discretion”).

22 The BIA’s determination that Lin was not eligible to
4

1 file a successive asylum application was not in error. See

2 Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir.

3 2008). 

4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

11 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

12 FOR THE COURT: 

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

14

15 By:___________________________