17-633 Wang v. Whitaker BIA A098 975 831

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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 22nd day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YAOHE WANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-633 17 NAC 18 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Russell J.E. 28 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 DC. 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 Yaohe Wang, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 24,

7 2017, decision of the BIA, denying his motion to reopen. In

8 re Yaohe Wang, No. A098 975 831 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2017). We

9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

10 procedural history in this case.

11 The applicable standards of review are well established.

12 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

13 2008); Pierre v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2009).

14 Wang sought reopening after the BIA summarily dismissed his

15 appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of relief from

16 removal, asserting that he had not received a briefing

17 schedule. “[A] motion to reopen shall state the new facts

18 that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is

19 granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other

20 evidentiary materials.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R.

21 § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA may deny a motion to reopen if “the

22 movant has not introduced previously unavailable, material

23 evidence.” INS v. Abudu,

(1988). The BIA

2 1 did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s motion to

2 reopen because he did not submit any evidence, such as

3 affidavits, in support. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B);

4 Abudu,

.

5 Further, the BIA provided Wang due process. “To

6 establish a violation of due process, an alien must show that

7 []he was denied a full and fair opportunity to present h[is]

8 claims or that [he was] otherwise deprived . . . of

9 fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales,

, 134

10 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Wang had a full

11 and fair opportunity to file a brief when, over the course of

12 one year and a half, the BIA sent him two briefing schedules

13 at the correct addresses of record and reopened proceedings

14 to permit him a second opportunity to file a brief.

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

16 DENIED.

17 FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 19 Clerk of Court

3