From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Li Yong Dong v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jul 9, 2009
328 F. App'x 90 (2d Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 08-0766-ag.

July 9, 2009.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel; Justin Constantine, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., and Circuit Judges.



SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Li Yong Dong, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a January 23, 2008 order of the BIA, which denied his motion to reopen. In re Li Yong Dong, No. A072 842 332 (B.I.A. Jan. 23, 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 for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Where the BIA considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, 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). We find that the BIA did not err in denying Dong's untimely motion to reopen or in finding him ineligible to file a successive asylum application.

Dong argues that the BIA erred by finding that he failed to demonstrate either material changed country conditions sufficient to excuse the time limitation for filing his motion to reopen or his prima facie eligibility for relief. However, these arguments fail 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 or an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. 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"). Further, there is nothing in the BIA's decision compelling the conclusion that it failed to take into account all of Dong's evidence as we "presume that [the agency] has taken into account all of the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise." See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir. 2006).

Finally, the BIA's determination that Dong was ineligible to file a successive asylum application was not in error. See Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).

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).


Summaries of

Li Yong Dong v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jul 9, 2009
328 F. App'x 90 (2d Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Li Yong Dong v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:LI YONG DONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jul 9, 2009

Citations

328 F. App'x 90 (2d Cir. 2009)