Qiu Fang Liu v. Holder

08-1877-ag Liu v. Holder BIA A095 462 721 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 27 th day of August, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _______________________________________ 13 14 QIU FANG LIU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 08-1877-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 ______________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Sheema Chaudhry, New York, New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General, John S. Hogan, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel, Channah 29 M. Farber, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, Civil 31 Division, United States Department 32 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Qiu Fang Liu, a native and citizen of China, 6 seeks review of the April 4, 2008, order of the BIA denying 7 her motion to reopen. In re Qiu Fang Liu, No. A095 462 721 8 (B.I.A. Apr. 4, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity 9 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 10 case. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 12 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 13 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of 14 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we 15 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial 16 evidence standard. Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d 17 Cir. 2008). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 18 Liu’s timely motion to reopen. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 19 232, 233-34 (2d Cir. 2005). 20 The BIA reasonably found that the evidence Liu 21 submitted was insufficient to establish that she was prima 22 facie eligible for relief based on her practice of Falun 23 Gong. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). To 2 1 establish her eligibility for relief as a Falun Gong 2 practitioner, Liu submitted an affidavit from her mother, 3 pictures of herself purportedly practicing Falun Gong, and a 4 warning letter from the Erliu Village Committee. However, 5 the BIA reasonably accorded little weight to this evidence. 6 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d 7 Cir. 2006). For example, as the BIA observed, a letter from 8 the Erliu Village Committee threatening “severe[]” 9 punishment unless she “stop[s] all reactionary activities 10 in the U.S.” did not state the type of punishment she would 11 face. The BIA also observed that the “only objective 12 evidence” submitted in support of the Falun Gong claim was 13 the State Department’s 2007 Country Profile. The BIA 14 reasonably determined that Liu’s evidence was insufficient 15 to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 16 Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104-05; see also Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d 17 at 342. 18 With respect to her claim based on the birth of her 19 U.S.-citizen children, Liu argues that she has a well- 20 founded fear of future persecution because Chinese family 21 planning officials are aware of her alleged violation of the 22 Chinese family planning policy. Liu further argues that the 23 BIA failed to provide individualized review of her case as 3 1 required by the BIA’s decision in Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I & N 2 Dec. 185 (BIA 2007) and this Court’s decision in Shao. The 3 BIA did in fact perform an individualized review of her 4 evidence. Moreover, Liu fails to specify any error in the 5 BIA’s decision, or record evidence indicating that she would 6 face a reasonable possibility of forced sterilization. 7 Shao, 546 F.3d at 169 (finding that the BIA reasonably 8 concluded that the family planning policy in Fujian province 9 is not implemented through the use of forced sterilizations 10 but through the use of economic rewards and penalties that 11 do not necessarily amount to “physical or mental coercion”). 12 As the BIA observed, the letter she received from the Erliu 13 Village Committee “did not state what specific punishment 14 [Liu] would face if she did not voluntarily submit to 15 sterilization.” See Shao, 546 F.3d at 160 (finding that the 16 BIA acted reasonably in determining that “unattributed 17 ‘reports’ of forced sterilization that lack[] any 18 specificity as to number or circumstance . . . d[o] not, by 19 themselves, persuasively demonstrate a reasonable 20 possibility that [an applicant] would face such future 21 persecution”). 22 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 23 denying Liu’s motion to reopen. See Kaur, 413 F.3d at 233. 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 9 FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 11 12 5