# Young Qiu Liang v. Holder > Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · April 17, 2012 · 478 F. App'x 678 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/728976 ## Case - **Full name:** YOUNG QIU LIANG, A.K.A. Yong Qiu Liang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - **Decided:** April 17, 2012 - **Citations:** 478 F. App'x 678 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Winter, Calabresi, Hall - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/728976 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/728976. Public record. Not legal advice.