Lin v. Mukasey, No. 06-60830 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 06-60830 Summary Calendar January 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk HE LIN Petitioner v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A72 782 530 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* He Lin, a native and citizen of China, has filed a pro se petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings as time- and number-barred. Lin specifically contends that he should be permitted to file a new asylum application pursuant to INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(D), which provides an exception to the oneyear filing deadline for asylum applications. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 06-60830 This provision governs asylum applications applicable to the reopening of removal proceedings. only and is not INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(2)(D). Rather, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) expressly applies to aliens under final orders of removal seeking to apply or reapply for asylum. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Lin could not avail himself of INA § 208(a)(2)(D) because the provision does not apply to aliens under final orders of removal. See Alaska Dep t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 489 & n. 13 (2004). Because Lin does not assert that the BIA abused its discretion in finding that he did not meet the time and number limitation exceptions outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), we decline to consider the issue. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).. Accordingly, Lin s petition for review is DENIED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
