12-2674
Lin v. Holder
BIA
A077 354 650
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 6th day of November, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 RALPH K. WINTER,
9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MEI YUN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-2674
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, N.Y.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Matthew A. Spurlock and Daniel E.
26 Goldman (Stuart F. Delery and
27 William C. Peachey, on the brief)
28 Office of Immigration Litigation,
29 Civil Division, United States
30 Department of Justice, Washington,
31 D.C.
1
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
3 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
4 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
5 review is DENIED.
6 Mei Yun Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
7 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 27, 2012,
8 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Mei
9 Yun Lin, No. A077 354 650 (B.I.A. June 27, 2012). We assume
10 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
11 procedural history of this case. We review the BIA’s denial
12 of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v.
13 BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We find
14 no abuse of discretion in this case.
15 There is no dispute that Lin’s 2011 motion to reopen
16 was untimely because her administrative removal order became
17 final in 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
18 § 1003.2(c)(2). To the extent Lin contends that the time
19 limitation does not apply because her motion is “based on
20 changed circumstances arising in” China, 8 C.F.R. §
21 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii),
22 her arguments are unpersuasive.
23
2
1 Initially, the basis of Lin’s motion to reopen – her
2 renewed claim for asylum based on her conversion to
3 Christianity in the United States – was a change in personal
4 circumstances arising in the United States, not a change of
5 conditions arising in China. See 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii) (providing that the 90-day time
7 limitation circumscribes eligibility for relief unless the
8 motion is based on a change in the country to which removal
9 has been ordered); see also Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
10 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008); Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d
11 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006).
12 Alternatively, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
13 denying Lin’s motion to reopen based on her failure to
14 demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS v.
15 Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). Initially, the BIA was
16 permitted to afford minimal weight to Lin’s personal
17 statement based on the agency’s uncontested prior adverse
18 credibility determination. Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160,
19 170 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, Lin’s evidence showing
20 isolated incidents of mistreatment to some Christians in
21 China is insufficient to demonstrate that her fear of
22 returning to China is well-founded. Given that she has only
3
1 cited a single incident of mistreatment of Christians in
2 that province, she has not established that the harm she
3 fears rises to the level of persecution in her locality.
4 Xiao Jun Liang v. Holder, 626 F.3d 398, 987 (2d Cir. 2010);
5 see also Jin Xia Zhan v. Holder, 515 F. App’x 2, 3 (2nd Cir.
6 Mar. 20, 2013); In re S-Y-G, 24 I.& N. Dec. 247, 251 (B.I.A.
7 Aug. 2, 2007), nor has she established that authorities in
8 China “are aware of . . . or likely become aware of [her]
9 activities. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135,
10 142-43 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Accordingly, Lin’s
11 contention that the BIA erred in finding that she failed to
12 demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for asylum based on
13 her subjective fear of returning to Fujian Province lacks
14 merit.
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
17 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
18 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
19 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
20
21
22
4
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
5