Case Name: XIU YA LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-29
Citations: 581 F. App'x 93
Docket Number: No. 13-3165
Parties: XIU YA LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
XIU YA LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-3165.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 29, 2014.
Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney, General; Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lisa M. Damiano, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Xiu Ya Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a July 30, 2013, decision of the BIA, denying her motion to reopen. In re Xiu Ya Liu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 30, 2013). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Liu filed a motion to reopen based, in part, on her claim that she fears forced sterilization because she has had more than one child in the United States, which she contends violates China's population control program. We find no error in the BIA's determination that Liu failed to demonstrate either materially changed country conditions excusing the untimely filing of her motion or her prima facie eligibility for relief on this ground. See id. at 158-72.
Liu also moved to reopen based on her claim that she fears persecution in China on account of her conversion to Christianity. We find no error in the BIA's determination she failed to demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for relief based on her religious practice. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).