21-6512 

Guo v. Garland

BIA

A077 978 090 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

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

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER 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 for the Second 

2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 

Square, in the City of New York, on the 20 3 th day of November, two thousand

4 twenty-three. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 REENA RAGGI,

8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

9 BETH ROBINSON,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________

12

13 MIN GUO, 

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 21-6512

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________

22
2

1 FOR PETITIONER: Meer M. M. Rahman, New York, NY.

2

3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant

4 Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant 

5 Director; Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, 

6 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 

7 States Department of Justice, Washington, 

8 DC.

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 

10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

12 Petitioner Min Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, 

13 seeks review of an August 23, 2021 decision of the BIA denying his motion to 

14 reopen proceedings ordering his removal from the United States. In re Min Guo, 

15 No. A077 978 090 (B.I.A. Aug. 23, 2021). We review that denial decision for abuse 

16 of discretion, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006), which is not evident 

17 here. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

18 procedural history, which we reference only as necessary to explain our denial of 

19 review. 

20 While a motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of a 

21 removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a one-year 

22 deadline applies when, as in Guo’s case, reopening was sought to apply for lawful 
3

1 immigrant status based on a visa self-petition filed by an alien physically present 

2 in the United States who “has been battered or has been the subject of extreme 

3 cruelty perpetrated by” a U.S. citizen spouse, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I)(bb); see 

4 id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv). The BIA may “waive this [one-year] time limitation in the 

5 case of an alien who demonstrates extraordinary circumstances or extreme 

6 hardship to the alien’s child.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III).

7 Although the BIA applied the general 90-day filing deadline and not the 

8 applicable one-year deadline for battered spouses, this fact does not warrant 

9 remand because, as Guo acknowledges, his motion, filed 15 years after the BIA’s 

10 removal order, was clearly untimely under either deadline. See Pet’r’s Br. 7 

11 (“Although Petitioner’s motion to reopen is untimely . . . .”); Ajdin v. Bureau of 

12 Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 437 F.3d 261, 266 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that 

13 harmless error by the BIA does not necessitate remand). Nor does Guo argue that 

14 section 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III)’s “extraordinary circumstances” exception to the 

15 one-year deadline should apply. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 

16 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (deeming issue abandoned when not argued in brief). 

17 Rather, he appears to fault the BIA’s refusal to apply a different exception, that of 

18 section 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), which provides that “[t]here is no time limit on the filing 
4

1 of a motion to reopen” an asylum or withholding of removal claim on the basis of 

2 “changed country conditions.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Pet’r’s Br. 7 (stating 

3 without elaboration that Guo “has demonstrated changed conditions which allow 

4 the motion to be exempt from the time limitation”); id. at 9 (referencing “a change 

5 in circumstances since the time of the original hearing”). To the extent Guo

6 challenges the BIA’s refusal to apply that exception, which he never cites in his 

7 brief, the BIA correctly concluded that he failed to provide evidence of changed 

8 country conditions, as opposed to changed personal circumstances. See Zheng v. 

9 DOJ, 416 F.3d 129, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) does 

10 not apply to changed personal circumstances, only changed country conditions). 

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 

12 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

13 FOR THE COURT: 

14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

15 Clerk of Court