Jiang v. Blanche

── Jiang v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General 24-3136 Jiang v. Blanche BIA A072 783 469 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 20th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, GUIDO CALABRESI, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ XIN JIANG, Petitioner, v. 24-3136 NAC TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jason Jia, Esq., Jia Law Group, P.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brett Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; Lindsay B. Glauner, Assistant Director; Margot L. Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Xin Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 18, 2024, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In re Xin Jiang, No. A072 783 469 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2024). 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. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). There is no dispute that Jiang’s motion to reopen was untimely and number- barred because it was his third such motion and he filed it more than 25 years after his deportation order became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (permitting one motion to reopen and setting 90-day deadline). And he moved 2 to reopen to apply for cancellation of removal, so his motion did not fall into a statutory or regulatory exception to the time and number limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 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). Further, equitable tolling was not warranted. Jiang relied on Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018) and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), which held that a statutorily defective “notice to appear” does not stop the accrual of physical presence required for cancellation of removal. As the BIA concluded, Pereira and Niz-Cha