Yang Qiu v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-2305 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2305 YANG ZHEN QIU, a/k/a Yoag Zhen Qiu, a/k/a Xiang Qiu, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 20, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yang Zhen Qiu, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying her motion to reopen the proceedings. We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and we deny the petition for review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), there is no time limit for a motion to reopen an asylum proceeding if the applicant claims changed country conditions and evidence of such change is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding. A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2011). of a motion § 1003.2(a); Barry v. to reopen INS Gonzales, v. for This court reviews the denial abuse 502 Doherty, 445 F.3d 741, of discretion. U.S. 744 314, (4th 8 323-24 Cir. C.F.R. (1992); 2006). The Board s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States. 2 Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This court has also recognized three independent grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied: (1) the alien has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not introduced (3) where previously relief is unavailable, discretionary, material the alien entitled to the discretionary grant of relief. evidence; would and not be Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988)). motion to reopen This court will reverse a denial of a only contrary to law. if it is arbitrary, irrational, or Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). In proceedings, the in context order to of a make motion a prima to reopen facie immigration case, Qiu must present objective evidence showing a reasonable likelihood that she can establish entitlement to relief. Gen., 503 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir. Sharder v. U.S. Att y 2007); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (alien must show that the new evidence would likely alter the result of the case); M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990). Because Qiu s claim is not based on past persecution, she must show a well-founded fear of persecution based on a 3 protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. well-founded 2004). The fear standard subjective and an objective component. contains both a The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person Gandziami-Mickhou in like v. circumstances Gonzales, 445 to F.3d fear 351, persecution. 353 (4th Cir. abuse its 2006). We conclude that the Board did not discretion in finding that Qiu submitted evidence that was not previously unavailable. abuse its standard discretion for We further conclude the Board did not in reopening finding based that on Qiu changed did not country meet the conditions announced in Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 251-52 (BIA 2007). Substantial evidence supports the finding that Qiu did not show a change in country conditions that would support a well-founded fear of persecution in someone with her review. We circumstances. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
