Xiu Juan Liu v. Lynch
670 F. App'x 28
2d Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Xiu Juan Liu, a Chinese national, sought review of the BIA’s denial of reconsideration of its denial of her second untimely motion to reopen immigration proceedings.
- The BIA denied the second untimely motion to reopen on two alternative grounds: (1) failure to show materially changed country conditions to excuse untimeliness, and (2) failure to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum.
- Liu moved for reconsideration, arguing the BIA erred legally in its changed-country-conditions analysis but did not challenge the BIA’s prima facie eligibility finding.
- The Second Circuit’s review was limited to whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration.
- The Court concluded the BIA’s independent, unchallenged prima facie-eligibility determination was dispositive and therefore upheld the denial of reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration of an untimely motion to reopen | Liu argued the BIA legally erred in finding she failed to show changed country conditions to excuse untimeliness | Government argued the BIA properly denied reopening because Liu failed to show prima facie eligibility for asylum (an independent basis) | Denied — BIA did not abuse its discretion; Liu failed to challenge the independent prima facie-eligibility ground, which was dispositive |
| Whether the court should reach the BIA’s changed country conditions analysis | Liu wanted reversal on changed conditions | Government relied on the alternative dispositive basis (prima facie eligibility) | Court declined to reach changed country conditions because resolution was unnecessary under Bagamasbad |
Key Cases Cited
- Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard of review for BIA denial of reconsideration)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (requirements for motions to reopen/reconsider)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (standards for motions to reopen and BIA discretion)
- Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007) (BIA decision-making and abuse of discretion review)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (courts need not decide issues unnecessary to the outcome)