Filed: Nov. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4380-ag Sun v. Holder BIA A093 397 267 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 “SUM
Summary: 09-4380-ag Sun v. Holder BIA A093 397 267 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 “SUMM..
More
09-4380-ag
Sun v. Holder
BIA
A093 397 267
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 2nd day of November, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 JIN MING SUN, a.k.a. JINMING SUN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-4380-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Joan Xie, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Luis E. Perez, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Elizabeth D.
29 Kurlan, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Jin Ming Sun, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the September
7 22, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In
8 re Jin Ming Sun, No. A093 397 267 (B.I.A. Sept. 22, 2009).
9 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
10 of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
11 Cir. 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
12 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
13 The BIA denied Sun’s timely motion to reopen based on
14 his failure to establish his prima facie eligibility for
15 relief. The BIA did not abuse its discretion. See I.N.S. v.
16 Abudu,
485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). In denying Sun’s motion,
17 the BIA reasonably accorded the documents he submitted low
18 probative value. Shunfu Li v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 141, 149
19 (2d Cir. 2008); See also Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d
20 143, 148-49 & n.6 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, contrary to
21 Sun’s argument, the BIA did not err in considering that
2
1 Sun’s wife, as a similarly-situated family member remaining
2 in China, had suffered no further persecution. See Melgar
3 de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999).
4 In addition, Sun failed to submit an application for
5 relief together with his motion, as required under the
6 regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA’s denial of
7 the motion to reopen on this ground was not an abuse of
8 discretion.*
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
*
Sun’s reliance on In re Matter of Yewondwosen, 21 I. &
N. Dec. 1025, 1027 (BIA 1997), is misplaced because, here,
the government did not affirmatively join in the motion to
reopen.
3
