Li v. Barr

18-430
Li v. Barr
BIA
A089 203 794
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 16th day of September, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges. 1
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YUJIAO LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-430
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY.
24
1 Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall, originally a member of the panel, is
currently unavailable. Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman has replaced Judge
Hall on the panel for this matter. See 2d Cir. IOP E(b).
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
2 Attorney General; Briena L.
3 Strippoli, Senior Litigation
4 Counsel; Benjamin Mark Moss, Trial
5 Attorney, Office of Immigration
6 Litigation, United States
7 Department of Justice, Washington,
8 DC.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Petitioner Yujiao Li, a native and citizen of the
15 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 5,
16 2018, decision of the BIA denying Li’s motion to remand. In
17 re Yujiao Li, No. A 089 203 794 (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2018). We
18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
19 procedural history.
20 In her motion to remand, Li asserted that she feared
21 persecution in China based on her conversion to Catholicism.
22 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of
23 discretion and any country conditions determination for
24 substantial evidence. See Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of
25 Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2005); Jian Hui Shao
26 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). “A motion
27 to remand that relies on newly available evidence is held to
2
1 the substantive requirements of a motion to reopen.” Li Yong
2 Cao, 421 F.3d at 156. The BIA may deny a motion to remand
3 if the movant fails “to make a prima face case of eligibility
4 for asylum.” Id. The movant bears the “heavy burden of
5 demonstrating a likelihood that the new evidence presented
6 would alter the result in the case.” Id. (internal quotation
7 marks omitted). To establish eligibility for asylum based
8 on activities commenced in the United States, “an alien must
9 make some showing that authorities in h[er] country of
10 nationality are either aware of h[er] activities or likely to
11 become aware of h[er] activities.” Hongsheng Leng v.
12 Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
13 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
14 Li failed to establish her prima facie eligibility for relief
15 because she did not demonstrate that Chinese officials were
16 aware or likely to become aware of her religious practice.
17 See id. Li did not assert that Chinese officials were already
18 aware of her religious practice in the United States. And
19 Li’s evidence in support of her motion provided that there
20 are tens of millions of Christians practicing in unregistered
21 churches in China and that officials in some areas do not
22 interfere with religious practice in unregistered churches.
3
1 Contrary to Li’s argument that the BIA should have taken
2 administrative notice of more recent country conditions
3 evidence given the years that had passed since she filed her
4 motion, it was her burden to establish that remand was
5 warranted, and she did not attempt to submit more recent
6 country conditions evidence despite having an opportunity to
7 do so. See Li Yong Cao, 421 F.3d at 156. Further, the more
8 recent evidence she cites is materially similar to the
9 evidence that was already before the BIA: both provide that
10 there are tens of millions of practicing Christians in China,
11 that in some areas of China officials do not interfere with
12 unregistered religious groups while in other areas they
13 monitor and persecute religious practitioners, and that
14 officials increased scrutiny of certain religious groups over
15 certain periods.
16 Therefore, because the BIA did not err in concluding that
17 Li failed to show a realistic chance of establishing that
18 Chinese officials would likely discover her religious
19 practice, it did not abuse its discretion in denying her
20 motion to remand to apply for asylum. See Hongsheng Leng,
21 528 F.3d at 143.
22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4
1 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
2 stays VACATED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
5 Clerk of Court
5