Filed: Aug. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 12-4 BIA Chen v. Holder A099 928 261 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
Summary: 12-4 BIA Chen v. Holder A099 928 261 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 O..
More
12-4 BIA
Chen v. Holder A099 928 261
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 6th day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 WEN QING CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-4
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, Robert Duk-Hwan Kim,
24 New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Margaret
29 Kuehne Taylor, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 Civil Division, United States
32 Department of Justice, Washington,
33 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 Wen Qing Chen, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 6,
7 2011, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In
8 re Wen Qing Chen, No. A099 928 261 (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 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. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
13 (2d Cir. 2006). It is well established that the BIA may
14 deny an alien’s motion to reopen for failure to demonstrate
15 her prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief
16 sought. See INS v. Abudu,
485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). To
17 establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant, like Chen,
18 who does not rely on past persecution must demonstrate an
19 objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future
20 persecution. See Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS,
445 F.3d 554, 564
21 (2d Cir. 2006); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178
22 (2d Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). An asylum applicant
23 can demonstrate that a fear of future persecution is
2
1 objectively reasonable by either: (1) offering evidence that
2 “she would be singled out individually for persecution”; or
3 (2) “proving the existence of a pattern or practice in []
4 her country of nationality of persecution of a group of
5 persons similarly situated to the applicant.” 8 C.F.R.
6 §§ 1208.13(b)(2), 1208.16(b)(2).
7 Chen argues that she established a well-founded fear of
8 future persecution based on her assertion that she would
9 practice in an unregistered church in China and letters from
10 individuals in her native village and background evidence
11 indicating that members of unregistered churches are
12 persecuted in China. However, the BIA reasonably declined
13 to consider her evidence to the extent that it pertained to
14 individuals who were not similarly situated to her --
15 including members of underground churches that were not
16 located in her native Fujian Province, pastors, human rights
17 and pro-democracy activists, lawyers, and artists. See 8
18 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (requiring that a motion to reopen be
19 based on new evidence material to the movant’s eligibility
20 for asylum); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2), 1208.16(b)(2)
21 (providing that, to establish an objective basis for a fear
22 of future persecution, evidence of a pattern or practice of
3
1 persecution must involve a group of persons “similarly
2 situated to the applicant”). To the extent that Chen’s
3 evidence indicated that members of underground churches in
4 Fujian Province were sometimes subject to beatings, arrest,
5 and detention, the BIA reasonably found that, absent more
6 detailed evidence, such treatment does not rise to the level
7 of persecution. See Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72
8 (2d Cir. 2011); Beskovic v. Gonzales,
467 F.3d 223, 226 (2d
9 Cir. 2006).
10 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when
11 it denied Chen’s motion based on her failure to demonstrate
12 her prima facie eligibility for relief. See Jian Hui Shao,
13 546 F.3d at 168.
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
25
4
