* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is

automatically substituted for former Attorney General

Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

08232010-26

07-5467-ag

Li v. Holder

BIA

A078 840 467

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 27th 4 day of October, two thousand ten.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 Chief Judge,

9 JON O. NEWMAN,

10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _________________________________________

13

14 MEI FENG LI,

15 Petitioner, 

16

17 v. 07-5467-ag

18 NAC 

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,* 20

21 Respondent.

22 _________________________________________

23
08232010-26 2

1 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey E. Baron, Baron, Mundie &

2 Shelkin, P.C., New York, New York.

3

4 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant

5 Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux,

6 Assistant Director; Briena L.

7 Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of

8 Immigration Litigation, United

9 States Department of Justice,

10 Washington, D.C.

11

12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

15 is DENIED.

16 Mei Feng Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks

17 review of a November 8, 2007, BIA order denying her motion

18 to reopen. In re Mei Feng Li, No. A078 840 467 (B.I.A. Nov.

19 8, 2007). Li’s motion to reopen was based on her claim that

20 she fears persecution on account of the birth of her U.S.

21 citizen children in violation of China’s family planning

22 policy. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth

23 in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.

24 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying her

25 motion to reopen. See id. at 168-72. Moreover, the BIA

26 reasonably declined to address some of Li’s evidence because

27 she failed to establish that it was unavailable at the time

28 of her merits hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see

29 also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). 
08232010-26 3

1 For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is

2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

11

12