Filed: Aug. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 08-1877-ag Liu v. Holder BIA A095 462 721 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 “SUM
Summary: 08-1877-ag Liu v. Holder BIA A095 462 721 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 “SUMM..
More
08-1877-ag
Liu v. Holder
BIA
A095 462 721
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 27 th day of August, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 DENNY CHIN,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 QIU FANG LIU,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 08-1877-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Sheema Chaudhry, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General, John S. Hogan,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel, Channah
29 M. Farber, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 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 Qiu Fang Liu, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of the April 4, 2008, order of the BIA denying
7 her motion to reopen. In re Qiu Fang Liu, No. A095 462 721
8 (B.I.A. Apr. 4, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity
9 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
10 case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
13 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of
14 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we
15 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial
16 evidence standard. Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d
17 Cir. 2008). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
18 Liu’s timely motion to reopen. See Kaur v. BIA,
413 F.3d
19 232, 233-34 (2d Cir. 2005).
20 The BIA reasonably found that the evidence Liu
21 submitted was insufficient to establish that she was prima
22 facie eligible for relief based on her practice of Falun
23 Gong. See INS v. Abudu,
485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). To
2
1 establish her eligibility for relief as a Falun Gong
2 practitioner, Liu submitted an affidavit from her mother,
3 pictures of herself purportedly practicing Falun Gong, and a
4 warning letter from the Erliu Village Committee. However,
5 the BIA reasonably accorded little weight to this evidence.
6 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d
7 Cir. 2006). For example, as the BIA observed, a letter from
8 the Erliu Village Committee threatening “severe[]”
9 punishment unless she “stop[s] all reactionary activities
10 in the U.S.” did not state the type of punishment she would
11 face. The BIA also observed that the “only objective
12 evidence” submitted in support of the Falun Gong claim was
13 the State Department’s 2007 Country Profile. The BIA
14 reasonably determined that Liu’s evidence was insufficient
15 to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See
16
Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104-05; see also Xiao Ji Chen,
471 F.3d
17 at 342.
18 With respect to her claim based on the birth of her
19 U.S.-citizen children, Liu argues that she has a well-
20 founded fear of future persecution because Chinese family
21 planning officials are aware of her alleged violation of the
22 Chinese family planning policy. Liu further argues that the
23 BIA failed to provide individualized review of her case as
3
1 required by the BIA’s decision in Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I & N
2 Dec. 185 (BIA 2007) and this Court’s decision in Shao. The
3 BIA did in fact perform an individualized review of her
4 evidence. Moreover, Liu fails to specify any error in the
5 BIA’s decision, or record evidence indicating that she would
6 face a reasonable possibility of forced sterilization.
7 Shao, 546 F.3d at 169 (finding that the BIA reasonably
8 concluded that the family planning policy in Fujian province
9 is not implemented through the use of forced sterilizations
10 but through the use of economic rewards and penalties that
11 do not necessarily amount to “physical or mental coercion”).
12 As the BIA observed, the letter she received from the Erliu
13 Village Committee “did not state what specific punishment
14 [Liu] would face if she did not voluntarily submit to
15 sterilization.” See
Shao, 546 F.3d at 160 (finding that the
16 BIA acted reasonably in determining that “unattributed
17 ‘reports’ of forced sterilization that lack[] any
18 specificity as to number or circumstance . . . d[o] not, by
19 themselves, persuasively demonstrate a reasonable
20 possibility that [an applicant] would face such future
21 persecution”).
22 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
23 denying Liu’s motion to reopen. See
Kaur, 413 F.3d at 233.
4
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
5
