Xin Qiang Liu v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 69

Liu, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1998 and was served a notice to appear in Mandarin; he retained attorney Robert Porges.
Liu failed to appear at his June 23, 1998 removal hearing; a telephonic attorney from Porges’s firm appeared and the IJ ordered removal in absentia.
Liu’s 1998 pro se motion to reopen was denied; he remained in the U.S. without authorization and did not timely appeal that denial.
In 2012 (nearly 14 years later) Liu moved to rescind the in absentia order based on ineffective assistance of counsel and sought to reopen based on changed country conditions arising from his 2011 conversion to Christianity.
The IJ denied relief as untimely and numerically barred: (1) Liu failed to show due diligence to warrant equitable tolling of the 180‑day rescission deadline, and (2) his evidence showed continuation — not intensification — of persecution for Christians in China; the BIA affirmed.
Liu petitioned for review; the First Circuit denied the petition, holding the BIA/IJ did not abuse their discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Liu is entitled to rescission of an in absentia removal order based on ineffective assistance of counsel and equitable tolling of the 180‑day deadline	Porges’s misconduct (failure to notify of hearing; later disbarment/conviction) was an exceptional circumstance and warrants equitable tolling and rescission	Liu waited ~14 years and failed to show due diligence; equitable tolling is not warranted; ineffective‑assistance claim fails on merits	Denied — issue waived for lack of developed argument on appeal; even if considered, BIA reasonably found no due diligence and no entitlement to equitable tolling or rescission
Whether Liu may reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions after converting to Christianity in 2011	Liu’s evidence shows worsening conditions for Christians in China and an individualized risk if he returns; thus the no‑time‑limit exception to motions to reopen applies	The record (State Department reports and other materials) shows continuing, not intensified, restrictions; Liu’s conversion is a change in personal circumstances and cannot constitute changed country conditions	Denied — BIA/IJ reasonably concluded country conditions did not materially worsen and conversion is a personal (self‑induced) change, not a basis for the exception

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (standard of review for BIA discretionary decisions)
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (deference to immigration adjudications)
Meng Hua Wan v. Holder, 776 F.3d 52 (First Circuit jurisdiction and exhaustion principles for motions to reopen)
Xue Su Wang v. Holder, 750 F.3d 87 (motions to reopen are disfavored; abuse of discretion standard)
Neves v. Holder, 613 F.3d 30 (equitable tolling principles in immigration context)
Tawadrous v. Holder, 565 F.3d 35 (changed country conditions must show intensification, not continuation)
Zhao‑Cheng v. Holder, 721 F.3d 25 (conversion is a change in personal circumstances and cannot alone show changed country conditions)
Haizem Liu v. Holder, 727 F.3d 53 (State Department reports highly probative; continuation vs. intensification analysis supported denial of reopening)