Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition by an individual from the People's Republic of China seeking a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen an immigration case. The central legal issue was the untimeliness of the motion, as it was filed almost six years after the BIA's initial decision, surpassing the 90-day deadline stipulated in 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2). The petitioner did not invoke any changed circumstances in China, nor did he provide evidence to support any such claim, which are prerequisites for an exception to the filing deadline under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(e)(3)(ii). Consequently, the Second Circuit held that the BIA acted within its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. Furthermore, the court acknowledged its lack of jurisdiction over the BIA's discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. As a result, the petition for review was denied, and the motion for a stay of removal was dismissed as moot, alongside the denial of the request for oral argument.
Legal Issues Addressed
Changed Circumstances Exception under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(e)(3)(ii)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Lin failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in China, which is necessary to bypass the filing deadline.
Reasoning: Lin did not claim any changed circumstances in China nor provide supporting evidence, which is required to bypass the time limit under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(e)(3)(ii).
Jurisdiction Over BIA's Discretionary Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted its lack of jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen the proceedings sua sponte.
Reasoning: The court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to exercise its authority to reopen the proceedings sua sponte for adjustment of status.
Timeliness of Motion to Reopen under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the BIA's decision that Lin's motion to reopen was untimely as it was filed nearly six years past the 90-day deadline.
Reasoning: The BIA denied Lin's motion as untimely, noting that his prior decision was issued in May 2002, while Lin filed his motion in March 2008, exceeding the 90-day deadline set by 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2).