2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-16-2012

Shu Cai v.;Attorney General United States

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2452

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Shu Cai v.;Attorney General United States" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 150.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/150
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2452

___________

SHU RONG CAI,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A099-564-558)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Frederic G. Leeds

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 15, 2012

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 16, 2012)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shu Rong Cai, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order 

entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen
2

removal proceedings. We will deny Cai’s petition for review. 

In 2001, Cai entered the United States without inspection, and in 2005 she applied 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. Cai 

claimed to fear persecution under China’s population control policies due to the birth of 

her two children in the United States. Cai conceded removability, and an Immigration 

Judge (“IJ”) denied her applications for relief from removal after conducting an 

evidentiary hearing. In October 2008, the BIA dismissed Cai’s appeal. This Court 

denied Cai’s petition for review. Shu Rong Cai v. Att’y Gen.

In September 2011, Cai filed a motion to reopen. She claimed that she became a 

practicing Catholic in 2011, that conditions for Catholics in China have worsened since 

her hearing before the IJ, and that she would likely face persecution on account of her 

religious beliefs. The BIA denied the motion to reopen as untimely filed, and it

concluded that Cai failed to submit evidence indicating that she would face persecution in 

China or that the conditions there have materially changed since her 2007 hearing. Cai 

timely filed this petition for review. 

, 356 F. App’x 593 (3d Cir. 

2009).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the BIA’s denial of a 

motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Luntungan v. Att’y Gen., 449 F.3d 551, 555 

(3d Cir. 2006) (citing Caushi v. Att’y Gen. 436 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 2006). “We will 

not reverse the BIA’s discretionary rulings ‘unless they are found to be arbitrary, 

irrational, or contrary to law.’” Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 495 (3d Cir. 2012)
3

(quoting Jian Lian Guo v. Ashcroft

Cai does not dispute the untimeliness of her motion to reopen, which had to be 

filed within ninety days of the final administrative removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 

1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Instead, Cai invokes the changed country conditions exception, which 

provides that the ninety-day period is inapplicable where the movant seeks reopening

based on evidence of “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality ...

if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or 

presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

, 386 F.3d 556, 562 (3d Cir. 2004).

Cai supported her motion to reopen with the following documents: her own 

affidavit; a new asylum application; birth and baptismal certificates; a letter from her 

church in the U.S.; photographs of her church activities; a Village Committee notice; an 

affidavit from the wife of Cai’s cousin in China; a 2007 State Department report; and 

other “background” materials. Cai contends that this evidence established her prima 

facie eligibility for asylum based on a fear of future persecution in China due to her 

newly adopted religion. We discern no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s decision to reject 

Cai’s evidence as insufficient to warrant reopening. 

The BIA observed that Cai’s own affidavit “is speculative, not based, in part, on 

personal knowledge, and does not demonstrate that [Cai]’s possible treatment in China, 

including arrest, would amount to persecution.” A.R. at 3-4. Cai concedes that her

assertions are based on “facts that she has never directly experienced,” Petitioner’s Br. at 

14, but she argues that her “only source of information is based on what she was told by 
4

her family members in China,” id.

Cai’s professed fear of persecution derives mainly from the Village Committee

notice and the affidavit prepared by her cousin’s wife. The purported notice from the 

“Changle City Tantou Town Yuan Dai Village Committee” indicates that Chinese 

officials intercepted mail that Cai had sent to the wife of her cousin, and in light of 

criticism that Cai expressed for China’s policy toward non-governmental Catholic 

churches, the Village Committee ordered the wife of Cai’s cousin “to urge Cai ... to 

immediately stop her reactionary conduct of inciting Catholics in China to complain 

against the Chinese government’s current policy on religion and to return to China to 

accept stringent punishment from the government.” A.R. at 96. Absent compliance, the 

Village Committee added, Cai “would receive severe punishment and be imprisoned.” 

 Whether or not Cai’s assertions are speculative, she 

failed to make a prima facie showing that she would face persecution in China. 

Id. Similarly, the unsworn “affidavit” from the wife of Cai’s cousin, who claims to have 

been visited by village officials, asserts that Cai “would definitely be arrested, sentenced, 

imprisoned and brutally persecuted by the Chinese government.” Id.

The BIA reasonably concluded that these documents – with their vague references 

to arrest, punishment, and imprisonment – did not warrant reopening given the absence of 

evidence suggesting that Cai would face treatment rising to the level of persecution. 

at 95.

See

Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[p]ersecution

is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as 

offensive,” and that “[a]busive treatment and harassment, while always deplorable, may 
5

not rise to the level of persecution”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see

also Pllumi v. Att’y Gen., 642 F.3d 155, 161 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The burden of proof on a 

motion to reopen is on the alien to establish eligibility for the requested relief.”) (citing 

En Hui Huang v. Att’y Gen.

Furthermore, the record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Cai’s “evidence does 

not indicate that conditions for members of unregistered Catholic churches in China have

worsened or otherwise materially changed since [Cai]’s previous hearing in 2007.” A.R. 

at 4. Cai relied primarily upon a State Department report issued in 2007, the same year 

as her hearing before the IJ. That report does not reflect a change in conditions in China 

post-dating the hearing, and Cai offers no argument at all on this appeal to question the 

BIA’s finding regarding the absence of a material change in conditions in China.

620 F.3d 372, 389 (3d Cir. 2010); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)).

1

We have considered Cai’s remaining contentions but conclude that they are 

without merit and warrant no separate discussion. Based on the foregoing, we will deny 

the petition for review.

 

 1

 Although the BIA did not reach nor rely on this issue, we note that our intervening 

precedent indicates that Cai’s decision to begin practicing a new religion after she 

initially was denied relief from removal constitutes a change in her personal 

circumstances in the United States, which on its own is insufficient to establish changed 

country conditions for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). See Khan v. Attorney 

General, 691 F.3d 488, 497–98 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding the “choice to engage in [certain] 

political activities after being ordered deported does not support application of the 

changed country conditions exception”). Our holding in Khan was consistent with earlier 

decisions that applied the same reasoning to changes in other personal circumstances. 

See, e.g., Liu v. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 145, 150–51 (3d Cir. 2009) (birth of children); 

Haddad v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 515, 517 (6th Cir. 2006) (marriage status). Simply put, 

this type of “self-induced change in personal circumstances cannot suffice.” Wang v. 

BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006).”