10-4670-ag Liu v. Holder BIA A077 710 510 A072 434 570 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 23 rd** **day of November, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_________________________________________** 11 12 **MING GUAN LIU, JIN YU CHEN,** 13 Petitioners**,** 14 15 **v. 10-4670-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_________________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONERS: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Ethan B. Kanter, Senior** 26 **Litigation Counsel; Paul F. Stone,** 27 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, United** 29 **States Department of Justice,** 30 **Washington, D.C.** 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioners Ming Guan Liu and Jin Yu Chen, natives and 5 citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of 6 the October 19, 2010, order of the BIA denying their motion 7 to reopen. In re Ming Guan Liu , Jin Yu Chen , Nos. A077 710 8 510, A072 434 570 (B.I.A. Oct. 19, 2010). We assume the 9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 10 procedural history of the case. 11 The BIA’s denial of Liu and Chen’s motion to reopen as 12 untimely was not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 13 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A motion to 14 reopen generally must be filed no later than 90 days after 15 the date on which the final administrative decision was 16 rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no 18 dispute that Liu and Chen’s 2010 motion was untimely, as the 19 final administrative order was issued in 2008. See 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time 21 limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen if it is 22 “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of 233 nationality or in the country to which deportation has been 1 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available 2 and could not have been discovered or presented at the 3 previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 4 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). However, Liu and Chen failed 5 to establish changed circumstances in China. 6 Liu and Chen converted to Christianity, prior to their 7 merits hearing in 2006. They argue that the reports they 8 submitted describe an increase in China’s human rights 9 abuses against Christians since the 2008 Olympics, and thus 10 demonstrate changed circumstances. However, the BIA’s 11 determination that the evidence failed to demonstrate 12 changed country circumstances since Liu and Chen’s 2006 13 hearing is supported by substantial evidence, as their 14 evidence did not show that any increase in suppression 15 continued after 2009. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,546 16 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, the BIA did not 17 abuse its discretion in declining to credit Ms. Zhang’s 18 affidavit based on its inherent vagueness and the underlying 19 adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. 20 Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007); Xiao Ji Chen v. 21 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). 22

234 Because the evidence Liu and Chen submitted was 1 insufficient to establish a change in country conditions, 2 the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that they 3 failed to meet an exception to the filing deadline and, 4 accordingly, in denying their untimely motion to reopen. 5
See8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii); 8 C.F.R. 6 § 1003.2(c)(2), (3). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 15

FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 17 18