The opinion
10-5121-ag
Liang v. Holder
BIA
A088 382 709
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 17th day of April, two thousand eleven,
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YOUNG QIU LIANG, A.K.A. YONG QIU LIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-5121-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Erica B. Miles, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Kohsei Ugumori,
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, U.S. Department of
30 Justice, Washington D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision, it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Young Qiu Liang, a.k.a. Yong Qiu Liang, a
6 native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks
7 review of the BIA’s November 29, 2010, decision denying his
8 motion to reopen and reconsider. See In re Young Qiu Liang,
9 No. A088 382 709 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2010). We assume the
10 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
11 procedural history of this case.
12 We review Liang’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his
13 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA,
14 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). “A motion to
15 reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to
16 the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and
17 was not available and could not have been discovered or
18 presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1);
19 see Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 292, 294 & n.3 (2d Cir.
20 2006). Failure to offer such evidence is, therefore, a
21 proper ground on which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen,
22 as is the movant’s failure to establish a prima facie case
2
1 for the underlying substantive relief sought. See INS v.
2 Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).
3 Liang initially challenges the BIA’s failure to credit
4 his supporting documents, namely a Village Notice
5 instructing his mother to tell him to return to China to
6 face punishment. However, the BIA did not abuse its
7 discretion in declining to credit Liang’s Village Notice,
8 because it was unauthenticated, and Liang had previously
9 been found to be not credible. See Qin Wen Zheng, 500 F.3d
10 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). As a result, Liang has not
11 shown that the Chinese authorities are either aware, or
12 likely to become aware, of his activities, or that he
13 possesses a well-founded fear of persecution. See Hongsheng
14 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
15 Specifically, Liang has failed to show that his subjective
16 fear of future persecution in China is objectively
17 reasonable. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169,
18 178 (2d Cir. 2004). As a result, the BIA did not abuse its
19 discretion in holding that Liang had not established his
20 prima facie eligibility for relief, and denying his motion
21 to reopen.
22
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
4