Dan Yun Hang v. Holder

Second Circuit

Dan Yun Hang v. Holder

328 F. App'x 71

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 2009

DocketNo. 08-0614-ag

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F. App'x 71 (Dan Yun Hang v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dan Yun Hang v. Holder, 328 F. App'x 71 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Dan Yun Hang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 11, 2008 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. [72]*72In re Dan Yun Hang, No. A079 691 524 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2008). 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 Shoo v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008). We find that the agency did not err in denying Hang’s untimely motion to reopen.

Hang argues that the BIA erred in concluding that she failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions or her prima facie eligibility for relief from removal. However, her 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 a reasonable possibility 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”).

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Dan Yun Hang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 11, 2008 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. [72]*72In re Dan Yun Hang, No. A079 691 524 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2008). 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 Shoo v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008). We find that the agency did not err in denying Hang’s untimely motion to reopen.

Hang argues that the BIA erred in concluding that she failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions or her prima facie eligibility for relief from removal. However, her 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 a reasonable possibility 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”).

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F. App'x 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dan-yun-hang-v-holder-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack