Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 07-4869-ag (L); 08-0902-ag (Con) Lin v.Holder BIA A077 650 636 

### UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFT ER 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. 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 18 day of May, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_________________________________________ 12 XUE YU LIN, 13 Petitioner , 14 15 v. 07-4869-ag (L); 16 08-0902-ag (Con) 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 20 Respondent . 21

_________________________________________ 22 FOR PETITIONER: Alexander K. Yu, New York, NY. 23 24 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney2 1 General, Civil Division, Ernesto H. 2 Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, 3 Gladys M. Steffens Guzmán, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration 5 Litigation, United States Department 6 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these consolidated petitions 9 for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 1 0 decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that 1 1 the petitions for review are DENIED. 1 2 Xue Yu Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 1 3 Republic of China, seeks review of an October 3, 2007, order 1 4 of the BIA denying her motion to reopen, In re Xue Yu Lin , 1 5 No. A077 650 636 (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2007), and a January 24, 1 6 2008, order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider, In 17 re Xue Yu Lin , No. A077 650 636 (B.I.A. Jan. 24, 2008). We 1 8 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 1 9 and procedural history in this case. 2 0 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen or 2 1 reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA , 413 2 2 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Jin Ming Liu v. 23 Gonzales , 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). 24 I. Motion to Reopen, 07-4869-ag (L) 2 5 The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying 2 6 Lin’s motion to reopen as untimely and number barred because3 1 it was her third motion to reopen and the BIA entered a 2 final order of removal in June 2003. See 8 C.F.R. 3 § 1003.2(c)(2). Furthermore, the BIA did not abuse its 4 discretion in declining to equitably toll the time period 5 for filing Lin’s motion to reopen because she failed to 6 demonstrate that she exercised due diligence in pursuing her 7 ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Cekic v. INS , 8 435 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA reasonably relied 9 in part on Lin’s failure to take any actions in her case for 1 0 the almost two and a half years between the denial of her 1 1 second motion to reopen and the filing of her third motion 1 2 to reopen. See Rashid v. Mukasey , 533 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 1 3 2008). Moreover, the BIA did not err in finding that Lin 1 4 knew of or should have discovered the alleged ineffective 1 5 assistance of counsel after she filed her appeal to the BIA 1 6 or when she filed her two previous motions to reopen or 1 7 reconsider. See Jian Hua Wang v. BIA , 508 F.3d 710, 715 (2d 1 8 Cir. 2007). 1 9 In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 2 0 finding that Lin failed to establish changed country 2 1 conditions excepting her motion to reopen from the time and 2 2 numerical limitations. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA , 437 F.3d4 1 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006); Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 2 155 (2d Cir. 2008). Contrary to Lin’s argument, a 3 reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to conclude 4 that the BIA failed to consider the evidence she submitted. 5 See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 336 6 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, the BIA reasonably declined 7 to credit that evidence given the IJ’s underlying adverse 8 credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 9 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007). 1 0 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 1 1 denying Lin’s untimely and number-barred motion to reopen. 12 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Kaur , 413 F.3d at 233; 13 Cekic , 435 F.3d at 170. 14 II. Motion to Reconsider, 08-0902-ag (Con) 1 5 Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s 1 6 motion to reconsider. Jin Ming Liu , 439 F.3d at 111. In 1 7 its decision, the BIA revisited its analysis of the evidence 1 8 Lin had submitted with her motion to reopen and reaffirmed 1 9 its conclusion that such evidence failed to establish 2 0 changed country conditions. See Wei Guang Wang , 437 F.3d at 2 1 274. Furthermore, contrary to Lin’s argument, the BIA 2 2 properly found no error in its reliance on the IJ’s prior 2 3 adverse credibility finding to discredit the evidence Lin5 1 submitted. See Zheng, 500 F.3d at 147.

For the foregoing reasons, the consolidated petitions 2 3 for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any 4 stay of removal that the Court previously granted is 5 VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal is 6 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument is 7 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 8 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 9 FOR THE COURT: 1 0 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 11 12