Ji v. Barr ( 2020 )

17-4018
Ji v. Barr
BIA
A087 728 717
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 TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
New York, on the 4th day of February, two thousand twenty.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
ROBERT D. SACK,
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
YOUQIANG JI,
Petitioner,
v. 17-4018
NAC
WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Joanna
L. Watson, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner YouQiang Ji, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29,
2017 decision of the BIA denying Ji’s motion to reopen. In
re YouQiang Ji, No. A 087 728 717 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2017). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of this case.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA may deny a motion to reopen
if “the movant has not established a prima facie case for the
underlying substantive relief sought.” INS v. Abudu, 485
U.S. 94, 104 (1988).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ji’s
motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen,
since he did not submit “clear and convincing evidence
indicating a strong likelihood that [his] marriage is bona
fide.” In re Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256
2
(B.I.A. 2002). Although Ji argues that his case should be
remanded to the BIA for the agency to consider evidence that
his wife’s I-130 visa petition has now been approved, we may
not consider, or remand for the BIA to consider, such extra-
record evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court
of appeals shall decide the petition only on the
administrative record on which the order of removal is based
. . . .”). The appropriate course is for Ji to submit any
additional evidence as part of a motion to reopen before the
BIA in the first instance. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494
F.3d 260, 262, 271 (2d Cir. 2007)
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
stays VACATED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court
3