11-1967-ag
Huang v. Holder
BIA
A094 801 604
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 9th day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 BAO YU HUANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-1967-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Ethan B. Kanter, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Charles S.
30 Greene, III, Trial Attorney, Office
31 of Immigration Litigation, Civil
32 Division, United States Department
33 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 Bao Yu Huang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 21,
7 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his
8 removal proceedings. In re Bao Yu Huang, No. A094 801 604
9 (B.I.A. Apr. 21, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity
10 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
11 case.
12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
13 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
14 Cir. 2006). The BIA may not grant a motion to reopen based
15 on new evidence unless the evidence “offered is material and
16 was not available and could not have been discovered or
17 presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
18 The BIA has explained that it will not grant a motion to
19 reopen based on evidence that is largely cumulative of
20 evidence previously submitted because evidence is not
21 material unless “the new evidence offered would likely
22 change the result in the case.” Matter of Coelho, 20 I. &
2
1 N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Jian Hui Shao v.
2 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 In the underlying proceedings, the agency concluded
4 that, despite evidence that Taoists were mistreated in
5 Huang’s hometown, Huang was not eligible for asylum or
6 withholding of removal because he could avoid persecution on
7 account of his practice of Taoism by relocating within China
8 as country conditions reports indicated that Taoism was
9 generally tolerated around China. See 8 C.F.R.
10 § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (“An applicant does not have a
11 well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could
12 avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the
13 applicant’s country of nationality . . . if under all the
14 circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant
15 to do so.”).
16 Huang’s motion to reopen these proceedings was based on
17 statements from three individuals describing their
18 mistreatment on account of their practice of Taoism in
19 Huang’s home county. As the BIA concluded, because this
20 evidence concerned incidents only in Huang’s home county it
21 did not rebut the agency’s prior conclusion that Taoists
22 generally were not persecuted in other parts of China.
3
1 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
2 Huang’s motion to reopen because his evidence would not
3 likely alter the result in his case. See Jian Hui Shao, 546
4 F.3d at 168; Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. at 473.
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4