Bifeng Liu v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 439 F. App'x 266 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2342
BIFENG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: July 19, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stuart Altman, LAW OFFICE OF STUART ALTMAN, New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E.
Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay Corliss, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bifeng Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen.
Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2011); INS v. Doherty, 502
U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400
(4th Cir. 2009). The Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is
reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen
are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the
deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United
States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The motion
“shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to
be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by
affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1) (2011). It “shall not be granted unless it
appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is
material and was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id.This court has also recognized three independent
grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be
denied: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case
2
for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has
not introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and
(3) where relief is discretionary, the alien would not be
entitled to the discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS,
146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S.
94, 104-05 (1988)). This court will reverse a denial of a
motion to reopen only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law.” Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
In the context of a motion to reopen immigration
proceedings, a prima facie showing “‘includes not only that
there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements
for the relief sought are satisfied, but also a reasonable
likelihood that a grant of relief may be warranted as a matter
of discretion.’” M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990)
(quoting Marcello v. INS, 694 F.2d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir. 1983)
(emphasis omitted)).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion finding that Liu failed to make a prima facie showing
that he was eligible for asylum. The evidence Liu submitted
fell short of showing that he had a well-founded fear of
persecution by the Chinese government based on his political
activities here in the United States.
3
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4