11-3102-ag
Qiu v. Holder
BIA
A089 009 110
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 23rd day of October, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
PETER W. HALL,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________
YI XING QIU,
Petitioner,
v. 11-3102-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondent.
_________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; William C. Peachey,
Assistant Director; Matthew A.
Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Yi Xing Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of the July 13, 2011 order
of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Yi Xing
Qiu, No. A089 009 110 (B.I.A. July 13, 2011). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of the case.
As Qiu timely petitioned for review of only the BIA’s
denial of his motion for reconsideration, the merits of the
underlying removal proceedings are not before us. See Jin
Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (per
curiam). A motion to reconsider must “specify errors of
fact or law in the [challenged BIA decision] and ... be
supported by pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6);
see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. Mukasey,
265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a
motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu,
439 F.3d at 111.
2
Because Qiu’s motion to reconsider simply repeated his
previously rejected argument that he had established past
persecution based on his “other resistance” to China’s
family planning policy, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying that motion. See id. To the extent Qiu contends
that the BIA erred in failing to address his claim of
economic persecution, his contention is unavailing. In
fact, the BIA considered Qiu’s testimony that he was fined
by Chinese authorities in connection with his attempt to
register his second child, and reasonably found that the
fine alone, which Qiu paid, did not threaten his life or
freedom and thus did not constitute economic persecution.
See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 67
(2d Cir. 2002) (holding that, while economic deprivation may
constitute persecution, an applicant must show at least a
“deliberate imposition of a substantial economic
disadvantage” to meet the relevant standard (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot, and the request
for oral argument is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule
3
of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local
Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4