Bo Lin v. Holder , 447 F. App'x 283 ( 2012 )

11-1688-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
A073 535 210
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 31st day of January, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
Bo Lin,
Petitioner,
v. 11-1688-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Eric Y. Zheng, New York, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Richard M. Evans,
Assistant Director; Ann Carroll
Varnon, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation,
United States Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Bo Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of
an April 11, 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. See In re Bo Lin, No. 073 535
210 (B.I.A. Apr. 11, 2011). 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. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
(2d Cir. 2006). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying Lin’s 2010 motion to reopen as untimely and
numerically barred because it was filed nearly twelve years
after his final order of removal, and after three previous
motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(i).
Although the time limits on motions to reopen may be
excused when the movant demonstrates changed country
conditions, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), we agree with the
2
BIA that only Lin’s personal circumstances had changed.
Lin’s claim was based on the fact that he converted to
Christianity while in the United States. Our legal system
does not permit aliens “to disregard their orders and remain
in the United States long enough to change their personal
circumstances (e.g., by having children or practicing a
persecuted religion) and initiate new proceedings via a new
asylum application.” Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143,
151-56 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437
F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006).
As to the evidence Lin submitted describing worsened
conditions for Christians in China, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s conclusion that the evidence did not
relate specifically to him, and any claim that he would be
persecuted was “speculative at best.” See Jian Xing Huang
v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005); see also
Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142-43 (2d Cir.
2008). Finally, we conclude that the BIA properly declined
to credit Lin’s remaining evidence based on the finding, in
the initial proceedings, that he was not credible. See Qin
Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007).
3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4