051710-17

07-5000-ag (L); 08-2085-ag (Con)

Jiang v. Holder

BIA

A076 280 366

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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

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

York, on the 31 day of August, two thousand ten. st

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

Chief Judge,

JON O. NEWMAN,

PIERRE N. LEVAL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________

SONG KOU JIANG,

Petitioner, 

07-5000-ag (L); 

 v. 08-2085-ag (Con)

NAC

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_________________________________________

 

FOR PETITIONER: Gang Zhou, New York, New York.

FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney

General; John C. Cunningham, Senior

Litigation Counsel; Briena L.

Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of

Immigration Litigation, United States

Department of Justice, Washington,

D.C.
051710-17 -2-

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of

two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for

review are DENIED. 

Petitioner Song Kou Jiang, a native and citizen of the

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of: (1) an October

11, 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen, In re

Song Kou Jiang, No. A076 280 366 (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2007); and

(2) an April 18, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to

reconsider and reopen, In re Song Kou Jiang, No. A076 280 366

(B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2008). 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 reopen or

reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d

232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Jin Ming Liu v.

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). When the BIA

considers relevant evidence of country conditions in

evaluating a motion, we review the BIA’s factual findings

under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v.

Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 

The BIA did not err in denying Jiang’s untimely motions

to reopen or his motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C.
051710-17 -3-

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We have

previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence

similar to that which Jiang submitted and have found no error

in its conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to

establish either material changed country conditions excusing

the untimely filing of a motion to reopen or a reasonable

possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at

169-72; see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d

Cir. 2006). To the extent Jiang requests that we take

judicial notice of documents outside the administrative

record, that request is denied. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales,

494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2007). 

For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are

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

that the Court previously granted in these petitions is

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

petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral

argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with

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

Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk