Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General * Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as respondent in this case.

091409- 2 06 -11 28 -ag Li v. Holder BIA A 076 505 678 

### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY O RDE R

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 A P P E NDIX 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 REP RE S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L U N L E S S T H E S UM M AR Y O RD E R

I S A V A I L AB L E I N A

N E L E C T RONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITH O U T P A Y M E NT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV / )

. I F N O 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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circu i t, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of November, two thousand nine.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

Chief Judge , JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges

.

__________________________________ ZU MAN LI,

Petitioner ,

v. 06-1128-ag NAC ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, *

Respondent

.

__________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.-2- 091409- 2 F O R R E S P O N D E N T : Erik C. Peterson, Un i t e d S tates Attorney; Richard D. Humphrey, Assistant United States Attorney, Western District of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this pe t i t i o n 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 Zu Man Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review o f a February 27, 2006 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Zu M a n Li , N o
. A 0 7 6 5 0 5 6 7 8 ( B

. I

. A

. F e b

. 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 )

. W e a s s u me the parties’ familiarity with the underly i n g facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006 )

. W h e n the BIA considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the B I A ’ s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).

The BIA did not err in denying Li’s untimely and numberbarred motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). I n d eed, we have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence similar to that which Li submitted and have found no error in its conclusion that such evidence is i n s u f ficient to establish either material changed country conditions ex c u s i ng the applicable time and numerical limitations or a reasonable possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F

. 3 d at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not ourselves attempt t o resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the agency”); s e e a l s o W e i G u a n g W a n g v . BIA , 4 3 7 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] . . . it may do so in summary fashion without a re viewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion”).-3- 091409- 2 Additionally, contrary to Li’s argument, he is not eligible to file a successive asylum application based on his changed personal circumstances. See Yuen Jin v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).

F or 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 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition i s D ENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), a nd Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

By:___________________________