Lam v. Blanche

── Lam v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General 25-78 Lam v. Blanche BIA Campanella, IJ A076 544 437 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ XIANG DE LAM, Petitioner, v. 25-78 NAC TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. * _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Felipe Alexandre, Esq., Alexandre Law Firm, Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; Lisa M. Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel; Todd J. Cochran, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Xiang De Lam, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 13, 2024, decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal from an April 28, 2021, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Xiang De Lam, No. A076 544 437 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2024), dismissing appeal from No. A076 544 437 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 28, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 2 procedural history. We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). Lam’s motion to reopen was untimely because he filed it more than 21 years after his final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (setting 90-day deadline for motions to reopen). And he moved to reopen to apply for cancellation of removal, so his motion did not fall into a statutory or regulatory exception to the deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C) (listing exceptions); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4) (same); Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105 (B.I.A. 2009). He did not move to reopen to re-apply for asylum or raise before the agency his assertion that the changed country conditions exception applied, so these arguments are unex