11-2673-ag
Wu v. Holder
BIA
A094 046 297
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 6th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 SHUIMEI WU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-2673-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael
24 Brown, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Jennifer Paisner Williams,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Lindsay
29 W. Zimliki, Trial Attorney, Office
30 of Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Shuimei Wu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 10, 2011,
7 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re
8 Shuimei Wu, No. A094 046 297 (B.I.A. June 10, 2011). We
9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
10 and procedural history of the case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
13 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Although Wu’s motion to reopen was
14 timely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), because she failed to
15 establish her prima facie eligibility for relief, the BIA
16 did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion. See INS
17 v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988).
18 To establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, a
19 movant must demonstrate “a realistic chance that he will be
20 able to establish eligibility” during reopened proceedings.
21 Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir. 2005)
22 (internal quotations omitted); see Hongsheng Leng v.
2
1 Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA found
2 that Wu had not demonstrated an objectively reasonable
3 possibility that she would suffer persecution in China on
4 account of her practice of Falun Gong in the United States,
5 because the evidence she submitted to show that the Chinese
6 government was aware of her practice, a sworn letter from
7 her father and a Village Committee notice, was not entitled
8 to any probative value.
9 Wu argues that the BIA erred in declining to accord
10 probative weight to the village committee notice and the
11 letter from her father. However, the weight afforded to an
12 alien’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely
13 within the discretion of the agency, particularly where, as
14 here, the affidavit was both vague and strikingly similar to
15 Wu’s own affidavit, and the Village Committee notice was
16 unsigned, did not identify a particular author, and was
17 unauthenticated. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
18 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Matter of H-L-H-
19 & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 & n.5 (BIA 2010).
20 Furthermore, as the BIA noted, neither the village
21 committee notice nor the letter from Wu’s father specified
22 the penalties to which Wu would be subject based on her
3
1 practice of Falun Gong. As a result, even if they were
2 accorded probative value, they were insufficient to
3 establish that any harm Wu might suffer would rise to the
4 level of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
5 F.3d 138, 162 (2d Cir. 2008).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
10 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
17
18
4