Xiaolan Shi v. Michael B. Mukasey

Eighth Circuit

Xiaolan Shi v. Michael B. Mukasey

326 F. App'x 414

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 2009

Docket08-1841

StatusUnpublished

This text of 326 F. App'x 414 (Xiaolan Shi v. Michael B. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xiaolan Shi v. Michael B. Mukasey, 326 F. App'x 414 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Chinese citizen Xiaolan Shi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) order denying her motion to reopen. After careful review, we conclude the BIA acted within its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to reopen, *415 because the motion was filed more than thirteen months after the final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final removal order), and because Shi had previously sought reopening, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (alien may file one motion to reopen). See Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 861 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). We also conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive the numerical and time limitations based on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because Shi failed to comply with the Lozada 2 requirements. See id. at 863-64; Hernandez-Moran v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 496, 499 (8th Cir.2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

2

. Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988) (petitioner must submit affidavit attesting to relevant facts; must inform counsel of allegations and allow response; and must state whether complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities, and if not, why not).

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

PER CURIAM.

Chinese citizen Xiaolan Shi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) order denying her motion to reopen. After careful review, we conclude the BIA acted within its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to reopen, *415 because the motion was filed more than thirteen months after the final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final removal order), and because Shi had previously sought reopening, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (alien may file one motion to reopen). See Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 861 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). We also conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive the numerical and time limitations based on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because Shi failed to comply with the Lozada 2 requirements. See id. at 863-64; Hernandez-Moran v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 496, 499 (8th Cir.2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

2

. Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988) (petitioner must submit affidavit attesting to relevant facts; must inform counsel of allegations and allow response; and must state whether complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities, and if not, why not).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F. App'x 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xiaolan-shi-v-michael-b-mukasey-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack