UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2305
YANG ZHEN QIU, a/k/a Yoag Zhen Qiu, a/k/a Xiang Qiu,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 20, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Brianne Whelan Cohen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yang Zhen Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen
the proceedings. We conclude the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion, and we deny the petition for
review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), there is
no time limit for a motion to reopen an asylum proceeding if the
applicant claims changed country conditions and evidence of such
change is material and was not available and would not have been
discovered or presented at the previous proceeding. “A motion
to reopen proceedings 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). This court reviews the denial
of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992);
Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). 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.
2
Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
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
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 v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th
Cir. 2009).
In the context of a motion to reopen immigration
proceedings, in order to make a prima facie case, Qiu must
present objective evidence showing a reasonable likelihood that
she can establish entitlement to relief. Sharder v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 503 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Jian Hui
Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (alien must
show that the new evidence would likely alter the result of the
case); M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990).
Because Qiu’s claim is not based on past persecution,
she must show a well-founded fear of persecution based on a
3
protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th
Cir. 2004). The well-founded fear standard contains both a
subjective and an objective component. The objective element
requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a
reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.
2006).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Qiu submitted evidence that was not
previously unavailable. We further conclude the Board did not
abuse its discretion in finding that Qiu did not meet the
standard for reopening based on changed country conditions
announced in Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 251-52 (BIA
2007). Substantial evidence supports the finding that Qiu did
not show a change in country conditions that would support a
well-founded fear of persecution in someone with her
circumstances.
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