Filed: Aug. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-3951 BIA Weng v. Holder A093 397 441 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 “SUMMA
Summary: 11-3951 BIA Weng v. Holder A093 397 441 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 “SUMMAR..
More
11-3951 BIA
Weng v. Holder A093 397 441
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 1st day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 JIAN MING WENG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-3951
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: David X. Feng, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Blair O’Connor,
28 Assistant Director; Jane T.
29 Schaffner, 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 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Jian Ming Weng, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 7,
7 2011, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In
8 re Jian Ming Weng, No. A093 397 441 (B.I.A. Sept. 7, 2011).
9 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
10 and procedural history in this case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
13 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Weng argues that he established
14 his prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of
15 removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture
16 (“CAT”) by showing that the Chinese government was aware of
17 his membership in, and activities in support of, the China
18 Democracy Party (“CDP”) in the United States. We find no
19 abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of reopening.
20 Weng did not join the CDP until after he left China and
21 did not allege past persecution on account of his political
22 activities. So in order to demonstrate his prima facie
23 eligibility for relief, he was required to show that there
24 was a realistic chance that Chinese authorities were either
2
1 aware or likely to become aware of his activities with the
2 CDP. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d
3 Cir. 2008). To make this showing, Weng submitted a letter
4 from his father, in which his father asserted that local
5 police came to his home and told him they were aware that
6 Weng had joined the CDP. The BIA reasonably concluded that
7 this evidence was inadequate to establish that Chinese
8 authorities were aware or likely to become aware of Weng’s
9 CDP activities because he did not contest the agency’s prior
10 adverse credibility determination, and the evidence
11 submitted was not meaningfully authenticated. See Kaur, 413
12 F.3d at 234 (petitioner’s evidence submitted with a motion
13 to reopen was not material because it did not rebut a prior
14 adverse credibility determination); Qin Wen Zheng v.
15 Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2007); Jian Xing
16 Huang v. U.S. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
17 As the BIA reasonably concluded that Weng’s motion to
18 reopen failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for
19 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, it did not
20 abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See
21 INS v. Abudu,
485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).
22
23 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
24 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3
1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
6 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
11
4
