# Yong Xiu Lian v. Holder > Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · September 13, 2011 · 437 F. App'x 26 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/613522 ## Case - **Full name:** YONG XIU LIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - **Decided:** September 13, 2011 - **Citations:** 437 F. App'x 26 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Winter, Cabranes, Sack - **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/613522 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that BIA did not err in according village notice minimal weight in motion to reopen “because it was unsigned and unauthenticated” ## Opinion text 10-2121-ag Lian v. Holder BIA A077 957 412 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 13th day of September, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 ______________________________________ 12 13 YONG XIU LIAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 10-2121-ag 16 v. NAC 17 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 ______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Michael Brown, New York, 24 New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Paul Fiorino, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Judith R. 29 O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, Civil 31 Division, United States Department 32 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 5 is DENIED. 6 Yong Xiu Lian, a native and citizen of the People’s 7 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 13, 2010, decision 8 of the BIA denying her motion to reopen her removal 9 proceedings. In re Yong Xiu Lian, No. A077 957 412 (B.I.A. 10 May 13, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 11 underlying facts and procedural history of the case. 12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 13 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 14 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in 15 denying Lian’s motion to reopen as untimely. See id. A 16 motion to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 17 days after the date on which the final administrative 18 decision was rendered in the proceedings sought to be 19 reopened. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). There is no 20 dispute that Lian’s motion to reopen, filed in August 2009, 21 more than four years after the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial 22 of her asylum application, was untimely. See id. 23 2 1 Furthermore, the BIA did not err in concluding that 2 Lian failed to submit material evidence of changed country 3 conditions as required to warrant consideration of her 4 untimely motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Lian 5 argues that the 2007 U.S. Department of State Profile of 6 Asylum Claims and Country Conditions (“2007 Profile”) shows 7 changed country conditions, pointing to the 2005 8 implementation of regulations in China which gave certain 9 legal rights to registered religious groups, but not to 10 unregistered religious groups. However, the 2007 Profile 11 indicates that this regulation is not a change in China’s 12 policy, stating while “[s]ome argue that the new regulations 13 foster a more tolerant atmosphere . . . others point out 14 that the new regulations merely codify past practice.” In 15 addition, although the 2007 Profile acknowledges China’s 16 repression of unsanctioned churches, as the BIA found, 17 similar conditions existed prior to Lian’s 2003 hearing, as 18 reflected in evidence she submitted before the immigration 19 judge (“IJ”). 20 Lian further argues that the BIA erred in discounting a 21 village committee notice she submitted with her motion to 22 reopen. However, the BIA did not err in according the 23 village notice minimal weight because it was unsigned and 24 unauthenticated. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 3 1 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007); Matter of H-L-H-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 2 209, 214-15 (B.I.A. 2010). Lian argues that Qin Wen Zheng 3 does not support the BIA’s decision not to credit the notice 4 because, unlike the petitioner in that case, the IJ found 5 her testimony credible. Contrary to Lian’s contention, 6 however, the IJ did not find her credible, but rather found 7 significant reasons to doubt her credibility before denying 8 her claim on alternative grounds. Accordingly, the BIA 9 reasonably found that Lian failed to demonstrate a material 10 change in country conditions, and did not abuse its 11 discretion in denying her motion to reopen as untimely. See 12 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 21 FOR THE COURT: 22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23 4 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/613522. Public record. Not legal advice.