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

06-1128-ag

Li v. Holder

BIA

A076 505 678

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.

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 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.
091409-2 -2-

FOR RESPONDENT: Erik C. Peterson, United States

Attorney; Richard D. Humphrey,

Assistant United States Attorney,

Western District of Wisconsin,

Madison, Wisconsin.

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 Zu Man Li, a native and citizen of the

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 27,

2006 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Zu

Man Li, No. A076 505 678 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2006). We assume

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 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). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of

country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review

the BIA’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). Indeed, 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 insufficient to establish either

material changed country conditions excusing the applicable

time and numerical limitations or a reasonable possibility of

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

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

record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the

agency”); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 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 reviewing court presuming that it

has abused its discretion”). 
091409-2 -3-

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). 

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 DISMISSED 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(b).

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

By:___________________________