12-2251

Liang v. Holder

BIA

A094 048 717

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

for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 17th day of October, two thousand thirteen.

PRESENT:

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

Chief Judge,

PETER W. HALL,

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

XUN XING LIANG,

Petitioner, 

 v. 12-2251

NAC 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

_______________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant

Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier,

Assistant Director; Sunah Lee, Trial

Attorney, Office of Immigration

Litigation, United States Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 in part and DISMISSED in part.

Petitioner Xun Xing Liang, a native and citizen of

China, seeks review of a May 7, 2012, decision of the BIA

denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s December 29,

2011, denial of his motion to reopen his removal

proceedings. In re Xun Xing Liang, No. A094 048 717 (B.I.A.

May 7, 2012). 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 reconsider

for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439

F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). A motion to

reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s

prior decision and be supported with pertinent authority. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen

Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.

2001). 

As an initial matter, to the extent that Liang

challenges the BIA’s 2011 denial of his motion to reopen, we

lack jurisdiction to review his arguments, as he did not

file a petition for review of that decision. See Ke Zhen

Zhao, 265 F.3d at 90; Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06

(1995). 

With regard to the motion to reconsider the BIA did not

abuse its discretion in denying Liang’s motion on the

grounds it failed to identify errors of law or fact in its

prior decision; the motion largely repeated arguments

contained in Liang’s motion to reopen which the BIA had

previously rejected. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. 

Liang argues that the BIA erred in noting in its denial of

reconsideration that Liang’s country conditions evidence

made only a single reference to the treatment of Christians

in Fujian Province. He asserts he demonstrated country-wide

persecution of Christians. Because the BIA gave “reasoned

consideration” to the country conditions evidence, it did

not abuse its discretion in finding no basis to reconsider

its prior conclusion that Liang had not shown a material

change in the treatment of Christians since the time of his

2
asylum hearing. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270,

275 (2d Cir. 2006); Ke Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 90. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. As we have completed

our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this

petition is DENIED as moot. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3