11-2355-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
A072 324 260
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 27th day of April, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
REENA RAGGI,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
JI SHENG LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 11-2355-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Ji Sheng Lin, pro se, New York, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Petitioner Ji Sheng Lin, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 12, 2011
order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Ji
Sheng Lin, No. A072 324 260 (B.I.A. May 12, 2011). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history of the case.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
Cir. 2005). Lin’s motion to reopen was timely, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C)(i), but, because he failed to establish
his prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of
removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture,
the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion.
See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988).
In order to establish prima facie eligibility for
relief, a movant must demonstrate “a realistic chance that
he will be able to establish eligibility” during reopened
proceedings. Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d
Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted). The BIA found that
2
Lin had not established his prima facie eligibility for
relief because he provided no evidence, other than his own
vague statement, to demonstrate that the Chinese government
was aware of his political activities with the Democratic
Party of China.
The weight afforded to an alien’s evidence in
immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion
of the agency. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). As a result, the BIA did
not err in finding insufficient Lin’s statement that the
Chinese government was aware of his political activities,
particularly since Lin’s statement was vague and from an
interested party. See Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d
246, 252 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that agency did not err in
finding vague testimony by asylum applicant insufficient to
sustain burden of proof). Because Lin submitted no other
objective evidence showing that the Chinese government was
aware of his political activities in the United States and
sought to persecute him because of those activities, the BIA
reasonably found that Lin failed to demonstrate his prima
facie eligibility for relief, and did not abuse its
discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See Hongsheng
Leng, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); Ramsameachire v.
3
Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Paul v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (stating that
where objective likelihood of persecution is not shown,
claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief resting on
same factual predicate fail as well).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4