Case Name: KUI LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-06
Citations: 352 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 08-1854-ag
Parties: KUI LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, and JON O. NEWMAN, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 352
Pages: 542–544

Head Matter:
KUI LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1854-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 6, 2009.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lindsay E. Williams, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, and JON O. NEWMAN, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
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.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Kui Lin, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of an April 11, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the May 24, 2007 order of the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying his motion to reopen. In re Kui Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 11, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 24, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
When the BIA adopts and supplements the IJ's decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We review the agency's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). When the agency considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008). We find that the agency did not err in denying Lin's untimely motion to reopen because it reasonably found that he failed to submit sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in China. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(2); see Wei Guang Wang v. B.I.A., 437 F.3d 270, 273 (2d Cir.2006) (finding that the birth of children in the United States was a change in personal circumstances, and not changed circumstances under the regulations).
While Lin argues that the BIA failed to provide a particularized analysis of the documents he submitted in support of his motion to reopen, we have previously reviewed the BIA's consideration of similar evidence in the context of an untimely motion to reopen and have found no error in its conclusion that such evidence was insufficient to establish either materially changed country conditions or an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72; Wei Guang Wang, 437 F.3d at 275. Because the failure to establish changed country conditions provides a valid basis for denying a motion to reopen, we cannot find that the BIA abused its discretion here. See Wei Guang Wang, 437 F.3d at 273.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 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(b).