Case Name: XIAO YING LIU, Shi Yu Li, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-18
Citations: 342 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 07-4106-ag
Parties: XIAO YING LIU, Shi Yu Li, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 342
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
XIAO YING LIU, Shi Yu Li, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 07-4106-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2009.
Yee Ling Poon, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Susan Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel; W. Daniel Shieh, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, 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 acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler as a respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioners Xiao Ying Liu and Shi Yu Li, natives and citizens of the People's Repub- lie of China, seek review of the August 31, 2007 order of the BIA, denying their motion to reopen. In re Xiao Ying Liu, Shi Yu Li, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We review the agency's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). Where 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 petitioners' untimely motion to reopen.
Petitioners argue that the BIA erred in concluding that they failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions sufficient to excuse the time limitation for filing their motion to reopen. However, this argument fails where 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 material changed country conditions. See id. at 169-72 (noting that "[w]e do not ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the agency"); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as "the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] . it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion"). Moreover, contrary to petitioners' argument, we find nothing in the record that suggests that the BIA ignored the particularized evidence that they submitted in determining that they failed to demonstrate changed country conditions. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006); cf. Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 172 (finding no error in the BIA's determination that evidence referencing the family planning policy's mandatory sterilization requirement does not indicate that sterilization will be performed by force).
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).