Shi Hao Shi v. Holder , 456 F. App'x 69 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          11-1834-ag
    Shi v. Holder
    BIA
    A077 341 285
    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 30th day of January, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                GUIDO CALABRESI,
    8                ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
    9                RICHARD C. WESLEY,
    10                    Circuit Judges.
    11       _______________________________________
    12
    13       SHI HAO SHI, AKA SHAOHUA LI,
    14       AKA SHI HAO JIN,
    15                Petitioner,
    16
    17                       v.                                     11-1834-ag
    18                                                              NAC
    19       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    20       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    21                Respondent.
    22       _______________________________________
    23
    24       FOR PETITIONER:               Zhao Wang, New York, New York.
    25
    26       FOR RESPONDENT:               Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    27                                     General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
    28                                     Director; Tracie N. Jones, Trial
    29                                     Attorney, Office of Immigration
    30                                     Litigation, United States Department
    31                                     of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    1       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    2   decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
    3   hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
    4   review is DENIED.
    5       Shi Hao Shi, a native and citizen of the People’s
    6   Republic of China, seeks review of an April 25, 2011,
    7   decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Shi
    8   Hao Shi, No. A077 341 285 (B.I.A. Apr. 25, 2011).     We assume
    9   the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
    10   procedural history of this case.
    11       We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
    12   abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s
    13   admonition that such motions are “disfavored.”      Ali v.
    14   Gonzales, 
    448 F.3d 515
    , 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v.
    15   Doherty, 
    502 U.S. 314
    , 322-23 (1992)).    Aliens seeking to
    16   reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later
    17   than 90 days after the date on which the final
    18   administrative decision was rendered.    8 U.S.C.
    19   § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).     It is
    20   undisputed that Shi’s November 2010 motion to reopen was
    21   untimely, because the BIA issued its final order of removal
    22   in 2003, and number-barred, because it is his second motion
    2
    1   to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C)(i); see also
    2   8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).     However, the time and number
    3   limitations for filing a motion to reopen do not apply if
    4   the motion is “based on changed country conditions arising
    5   in the country of nationality or the country to which
    6   removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and
    7   was not available and would not have been discovered or
    8   presented at the previous proceedings.”     8 U.S.C.
    9   § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
    10       In this case, the agency did not abuse its discretion
    11   in denying Shi’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-
    12   barred.   The agency reasonably relied on the IJ’s underlying
    13   adverse credibility determination to decline to credit Shi’s
    14   uncorroborated and unauthenticated evidence purporting to
    15   establish changed country conditions.     See Qin Wen Zheng v.
    16   Gonzales, 
    500 F.3d 143
    , 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007).
    17       Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
    18   conclusion that the background materials do not demonstrate
    19   a change in country conditions material to Shi’s claim that
    20   he is eligible for relief.     See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
    21   
    546 F.3d 138
    , 169 (2d Cir. 2008).     The country conditions
    22   materials provided by Shi did not support his contention
    3
    1   that he would be persecuted for practicing Christianity in
    2   China because the change in Chinese regulations he relies on
    3   pre-dates the information in the State Department reports
    4   cited by the BIA by approximately four years.    As the BIA
    5   found, the 2009 State Department report reflects that, while
    6   the government requires churches to register and restricts
    7   participation in unregistered or house churches, “freedom to
    8   participate in religious activities continued to increase in
    9   many areas.”   The Religious Freedom report reflects that the
    10   Chinese government’s interference with unregistered churches
    11   varied depending on the location, and that between 50 and 70
    12   million people in China practiced Christianity without
    13   government interference.    Although both reports reflect that
    14   church leaders and unregistered house churches face
    15   occasional harassment, nothing in the background materials
    16   supports Shi’s claim that he will be harassed or tortured on
    17   the basis of his faith if he returns to China.     Absent
    18   “solid support” in the record that his fear is objectively
    19   reasonable, Shi’s claim of future persecution is
    20   “speculative at best.”     Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421
    
    21 F.3d 125
    , 129 (2d Cir. 2005); see Jian Hui 
    Shao, 546 F.3d at 22
      154, 163-66.
    23
    4
    1       Finally, the agency properly concluded that Shi’s
    2   conversion to Christianity in the United States constituted
    3   a self-induced change in personal circumstances that did not
    4   merit an exception to the time and number limitations
    5   applicable to motions to reopen.    See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
    6   
    437 F.3d 270
    , 274 (2d Cir. 2006).    Accordingly, the agency
    7   did not abuse its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to
    8   reopen.
    9       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    10   DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    11   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    12   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    13   this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
    14   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    15   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    16   Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    17                                 FOR THE COURT:
    18                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    19
    20
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1834-ag

Citation Numbers: 456 F. App'x 69

Judges: Calabresi, Katzmann, Wesley

Filed Date: 1/30/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024