2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-23-2004 

# Liu v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3079

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" L iu v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 464. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/464NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No
. 03-3079
XIN SH UI L IU ,

Petitioner, v. JOH N A SHC ROF T, Attorney General of the United States; BUREA U OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRA TION SERVICES,

Res pon dents
Petition for Revi ew of an Order of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (Bo ard No
. A70-893-818 )

Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) July2, 2004 Bef ore: AMBRO , ALDISERT and ST AP LE TO N, Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: Jul y 23, 2004)

_____ OPINI ON OF THE COURT
AL DI SE RT , Circuit

Judge
. Because we write onl y for the part ies, who are famili ar with t he facts , the

### 2

proceduralhist ory and the contentions presented, we willnot reci te the m except as
nece ssary to the discu ssion. X in Sh ui Liu , a native and c itizen o f Ch ina, pe titions this
cour t to revie w a n ord er of th e Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals ( “Bo ard”) d enying h is
mo tion to re con side r an earli er B oar d de term inati on r esu lting in a f inal r em ova l ord er. For the r easons that fol low, we will deny t he peti tion. Liu, who is married and ha s thre e chil dren res iding i n China, entered theUnited States without i nspecti on on March 20, 1993. On May 19, 1993, Liu submitted an applic ation f

or asy lum based on cl aims of past persecution and fear

of future pe rsecution for viol ating Chi na’s one- child f amilyplanning pol icy . After s ix heari ngs, the IJ deni ed Liu’s applic ation, d eterm ining th at Liu had n ot sup ported his asylum claim with credib le testimony. The Board affirmed t he IJ’s decisi on on March 3, 2003. Liu di d not peti tion for revi ew of the Board’s order, but on March 24, 2003, he fi led a moti on to recons ider with the B oard . The Bo ard d enied the m otion o n Jun e 20, 2 003 . Liu f iled a tim ely petition for review of the ord er denying the m otion to recon sider. Liu’s brief be fore this court is m ostly devoted to his con tention that the IJ’s credibi lit y determination was not suppor ted bysubstant

ial e vidence. Liu’s petiti on for review must be de nied for two reasons. First, to the e xtent Li u seeks j udicial revi ew of the Board’s March 3, 2003 finalorder of removal, we do not ha ve juri sdiction to review th at o rd er be ca us e L iu fa ile d t o f ile a p eti tio n f or re vi ew w ith in 30 da ys a s re qu ire d b y 8 U.S .C. § 1 252 (b)(1). S econ d, Liu has n ot dem onstra ted tha t the B oard abus ed its

### 3

disc retio n in den ying th e m otio n to reco nsid er. See INS v. D oher ty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (hol ding that

the Board’s denialof a motion t o reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion). It i s uncontr overted t

hat Liu di d not fil e a peti tion to review theBoard’s March 3, 2003, order

within 30 day s of that

order, as requi red by8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1). The 30- day filing period is “jurisd ictiona l in natu re and mu st be co nstrue d w ith strict fid elity to [its ] terms.” St onev. INS , 514 U.S . 386 , 405 (19 95) (co nstru ing for me r 8 U .S.C . § 1105a(a)( 1)). The fili ng of a motion t o reconsi der a fi nal order of deportation does not tollthe 30-day

period for

seeking j udicial revi ew of the underl yi ng order and does not
ren der the u nde rlying o rde r no n-f inal. Id. at 394. Because Liu fai led to meet the 30-day filin g pe riod , we do n ot h ave juris dicti on t o re view the B oar d’s M arch 3, 20 03 o rde r. See Noc on v . INS , 789 F.2 d 10 28, 1 032 -10 33 ( 3d C ir. 19 86)
. See also Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just

ice , 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Becausewe are precl uded from passi ng on the meri ts of the underlying excl usion proc eedings, petit ioner’ s assertions that he receiv ed no due p roces s at his h earing and th at the im migra tion jud ge’s c redibility determination was n ot based o n substantial evide nce are no t before us.”). With respe ct to L iu’s pe tition fo r review of the Bo ard’s d enial o f his m otion to reconsi der, Li u has not shown that the Boar d abused it s discretion i n the June 20, 2003 ord er d enyin g th e m otio n. See Nocon , 789 F .2d at 1 033 . In his m otion to recon sider, L iu
wa s requ ired to “ state the reaso ns fo r the m otion b y specifying the erro rs of f act or la w in

### 4

the pri or Board deci sion” and s upport hi s contentions with “perti nent authority. ” Nas ci men to v. INS , 274 F.3 d 26 , 27 ( 1st C ir. 20 01) (citin g 8 C .F.R . § 3.2 (b)(1 ) (20 01) ). Liu contends the Board abuse d its discr etion i n denyi ng his moti on to recons ider because he had not

been given a ful l chance to testify , theBoard fail ed to givesubstant ial
we igh t to h is tes timo ny, the Bo ard disc oun ted h is do cum enta ry evid enc e fo r no reas on, the B oard misu nder stood Ch ina’s f amily plan ning policy an d he h ad ne w e viden ce in support of his claims. We reject each of these contenti ons. Liu was afforded a ful l and fai r opportunity to be hear d at si x administ rati ve hearin gs be fore th e IJ. A t the fin al hea ring, in w hich h is app lication w as de nied, L iu testif ied b efo re th e IJ a nd p rese nted doc um enta ry evid enc e to s upp ort h is tes timo ny. Liu’s conte ntion th at the IJ d id no t take h is claim s seriou sly and ign ored his testim ony is not supp orted by the record. A lthough the IJ declined to ad mit some of Liu’s docu men tary evide nce, th e IJ did so fo r we ll-substa ntiated reaso ns, inclu ding that L iu failed to auth entica te or es tablish a chain of cu stody fo r certain docu men ts, Liu f ailed to sub mit s eve ral d ocu me nts in a tim ely fas hio n an d so me of th e do cum ents lack ed c larity. Mo reover, the reco rd does n ot reflect any misund erstanding o n the part of th e IJ regardi ng China’s bi rth cont rol pol icy , rat

her it simplyrefle cts t

he IJ’s belie f that

the policy w as no t cons istent w ith the c laims m ade b y Liu. A lthoug h it is con sistent w ith China’s f amily planning p olicy for a family to be fined after the birth of a se cond o r third child, it is n ot con sistent w ith the p olicy for f ines to a gain b e levie d years af ter the b irth

### 5

has tak en pla ce. M oreo ver, the Fujian Prov ince is k now n fo r being mo re relax ed in its enforcement of such policies. Finally, Liu failed to raise any new factual argu ments in h is motion to reco nsider. Inste ad, he re iter ated the same contentions he had outlined i n his ori ginal appeal t o the Board. As for t

he legalclai ms he rais ed, those were als o alrea dy r aised i n his ori ginal appeal. Furthermore, Liu fai ls t o provide any legalauthori tyto support his cl aims and inst ead rel ies on conclusorystatements that the Boar d erred as a matter of law. Such
conc lusory state men ts cann ot satisfy his burd en to e stablish that the Bo ard ab used its disc retio n in den ying h is m otio n to reco nsid er. See Nocon , 789 F.2d at 1033. We have considered a ll of t he contentions raised bythe part ies and conc lude that no f urth er d iscu ssio n is n ece ssar y. The petition for review willbe denied. 

### 1