Ru Lin v. Holder , 447 F. App'x 273 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          11-666-ag
    Lin v. Holder
    BIA
    A073 180 246
    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.
    1            At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
    2       for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 10th day of January, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                PETER W. HALL,
    8                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    9                DENNY CHIN,
    10                    Circuit Judges.
    11       _________________________________________
    12
    13       RU LIN,
    14                       Petitioner,
    15
    16                       v.                                        11-666-ag
    17                                                                 NAC
    18       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    19       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    20                Respondent.
    21       _________________________________________
    22
    23       FOR PETITIONER:                Eric Y. Zheng, New York, New York.
    24
    25       FOR RESPONDENT:                Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    26                                      General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior
    27                                      Litigation Counsel; Susan Houser,
    28                                      Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
    29                                      Immigration Litigation, United
    30                                      States Department of Justice,
    31                                      Washington, D.C.
    1       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    2   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
    3   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
    4   is DENIED.
    5       Petitioner Ru Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
    6   Republic of China, seeks review of the January 21, 2011,
    7   decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen.     In re Ru
    8   Lin, No. A073 180 246 (B.I.A. Jan. 21, 2011).    We assume the
    9   parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
    10   procedural history of the case.
    11       The BIA’s denial of Lin’s motion to reopen as untimely
    12   was not an abuse of discretion.    See Kaur v. BIA, 
    413 F.3d 13
       232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (reviewing denial of a
    14   motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion).     A
    15   motion to reopen generally must be filed no later than 90
    16   days after the date on which the final administrative
    17   decision has been rendered in the proceedings sought to be
    18   reopened.    8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
    19   § 1003.2(c)(2).    There is no dispute that Lin’s 2010 motion
    20   was untimely, as the final administrative decision was
    21   issued in 2002.    See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
    22   § 1003.2(c)(2).    This was also Lin’s third motion to reopen.
    2
    1   The time and number limitations do not apply to a motion to
    2   reopen if it is “based on changed circumstances arising in
    3   the country of nationality or in the country to which
    4   deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material
    5   and was not available and could not have been discovered or
    6   presented at the previous hearing.”   8 C.F.R.
    7   § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
    8   Lin contends that her new practice of Christianity in the
    9   United States constitutes changed circumstances.   As the BIA
    10   noted, however, Lin’s baptism into the Christian faith,
    11   which occurred in 2007 in the United States, reflects a
    12   self-induced change in personal circumstances, and therefore
    13   does not exempt her motion from the applicable bars.     See
    14   Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 
    437 F.3d 270
    , 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006);
    15   Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 143
    , 155 (2d Cir. 2008).
    16       Lin also argues that she demonstrated changed country
    17   conditions by submitting evidence showing that treatment of
    18   Christians in China worsened in 2008 and 2009, and that the
    19   BIA abused its discretion by overlooking this evidence.
    20   However, assuming arguendo that Lin can rely on such
    21   evidence, the BIA referenced this evidence in its decision,
    22   and its acknowledgment was sufficient.   See Jian Hui Shao v.
    3
    1   Mukasey, 
    546 F.3d 138
    , 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that the
    2   BIA does not need to expressly parse or refute every piece
    3   of evidence submitted by the petitioner); Xiao Ji Chen v.
    4   U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    471 F.3d 315
    , 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006)
    5   (“[w]e presume that an IJ has taken into account all of the
    6   evidence before him, unless the record compellingly suggests
    7   otherwise”).
    8       Moreover, the BIA’s determination that the evidence
    9   failed to demonstrate changed country conditions is
    10   supported by substantial evidence.   See Jian Hui Shao, 546
    11   F.3d at 169 (when the BIA considers relevant evidence of
    12   country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we
    13   review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial
    14   evidence standard).   Lin fails to show a material worsening
    15   of conditions for Christians in China, as the background
    16   materials submitted show a continued repression of
    17   Christians who worship in unregistered churches, and Lin
    18   does not explain how the evidence shows any increase in the
    19   frequency or scale of persecution.   We decline to reach
    20   Lin’s assertion that she has established her prima facie
    21   eligibility for relief.
    22
    4
    1       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    2   DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    3   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    4   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    5   this petition is DENIED as moot.    Any pending request for
    6   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    7   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    8   Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    9                                 FOR THE COURT:
    10                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    11
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-666-ag

Citation Numbers: 447 F. App'x 273

Judges: Hall, Livingston, Chin

Filed Date: 1/10/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024