Filed: Sep. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-5036 BIA Wang v. Holder A075 969 598 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: 11-5036 BIA Wang v. Holder A075 969 598 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
11-5036 BIA
Wang v. Holder A075 969 598
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 20th day of September, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12
13 MING CAN WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-5036
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Peter D. Lobel, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
27 Assistant Director; Kelly J. Walls,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 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 Ming Can Wang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 3,
7 2011 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In
8 re Ming Can Wang, No. A075 969 598 (B.I.A. Nov. 3, 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). Because Wang did not become a
14 Christian until after he left China and did not allege past
15 persecution on account of his Christian faith, in order to
16 demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for relief, he was
17 required to show a realistic chance that Chinese authorities
18 were either aware or likely to become aware of his religious
19 activities. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 168
20 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d
21 135, 142 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Wang did not
22 establish a realistic chance that Chinese authorities would
23 become aware of his religious activities, based on the
2
1 background evidence in the administrative record. That
2 evidence shows that Chinese authorities interfered only with
3 several large house churches. See Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d
4 at 142. Wang also did not establish a realistic chance that
5 Chinese authorities would become aware of his religious
6 activities, based on a letter submitted by his cousin, which
7 indicates that two underground church members were arrested
8 in China. The letter does not show that Wang is either
9 likely to be targeted for persecution or that there exists a
10 pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated
11 individuals. Id.; accord 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)
12 (asylum), 1208.16(b)(2)(i) (withholding of removal).
13 Accordingly, as Wang failed to show that Chinese authorities
14 were aware or likely to discover his practice of
15 Christianity, he did not establish his prima facie
16 eligibility for relief. See Hongsheng
Leng, 528 F.3d at
17 142; see also Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129
18 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (absent “solid support” in the
19 record that his fear is objectively reasonable, a
20 petitioner’s claim is “speculative at best”).
21 Wang’s final argument that the BIA abused its
22 discretion by failing to explicitly consider probative
23 evidence of changed country conditions is unavailing,
3
1 because the BIA’s denial of his motion for failure to
2 establish his prima facie eligibility for relief was
3 dispositive. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
4
