YAOHE WANG v. WHITAKER (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yaohe Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 24, 2017, decision of the BIA, denying his motion to reopen. In re Yaohe Wang, No. A098 975 831 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Wang sought reopening after the BIA summarily dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of relief from removal, asserting that he had not received a briefing schedule. “[A] motion to reopen shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary materials.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA may deny a motion to reopen if “the movant has not introduced previously unavailable, material evidence.” INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s motion to reopen because he did not submit any evidence, such as affidavits, in support. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104, 108 S.Ct. 904.

Further, the BIA provided Wang due process. “To establish a violation of due process, an alien must show that [ ]he was denied a full and fair opportunity to present h[is] claims or that [he was] otherwise deprived ․ of fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Wang had a full and fair opportunity to file a brief when, over the course of one year and a half, the BIA sent him two briefing schedules at the correct addresses of record and reopened proceedings to permit him a second opportunity to file a brief. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.