Liu v. Blanche

── Liu v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General 23-6941 Liu v. Blanche BIA A076 506 360 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 13th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ XI DA LIU, Petitioner, v. 23-6941 NAC TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse D. Lorenz, 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 Xi Da Liu seeks review of a July 28, 2023 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Xi Da Liu, No. A076 506 360 (B.I.A. July 28, 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We generally review the BIA’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), but we review de novo Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Pamela Bondi as Respondent. 2 constitutional claims and questions of law, Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 102 (2d Cir. 2011). There is no dispute that Liu’s motion to reopen was untimely because he filed it more than 17 years after his removal order became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (setting 90-day deadline). 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 id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C) (listing exceptions); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (same); Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105 (B.I.A. 2009). Equitable tolling may excuse the time limitation but requires a movant to show “that some extraordinary circumstance stood in h[is] way.” Doe v. United States, 76 F.4th 64, 71