§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). I. Violation of China’s Family Planning Policy As an initial matter, the BIA’s application of Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc), and Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520 (A.G.2008), was not error because the BIA was bound to apply the law in effect at the time it entered its decision. See NLRB v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Buffalo, Inc., 55 F.3d 74, 78 (2d Cir.1995) (“Appellate courts ordinarily apply the law in effect at the time of the appellate decision.”). Moreover, Ye had the opportunity to present his claim after the issuance of Shi Liang Lin because his merits hearing did not occur until the following year. See Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The BIA reasonably concluded that Ye failed
holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted holding that an alien is entitled to the fifth amendment guarantee of due process which is satisfied by a full and fair hearing holding that in order to warrant equitable tolling alien claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the case during the period the alien seeks to toll internal quotation marks omitted