13-1943 Lin v. Holder BIA A087 481 027 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRE CEDENTIAL**  **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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 14 th** **day of April, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **CHANG DONG LIN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-1943** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Sandra Cheng, New York, NY.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Leslie McKay, Assistant** 26 **Director; Kelly J. Walls, Trial** 27 **Attorney, Office of Immigration** 28 **Litigation, United States Department** 29 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 30UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Chang Dong Lin, a native and citizen of 5 China, seeks review of an April 30, 2013, decision of the 6 BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. 7 In re Chang Dong Lin , No. A087 481 027 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 8 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 9 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 10 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 11 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 12 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An alien seeking to reopen 13 proceedings is required to file a motion to reopen no later 14 than 90 days after the date on which the final 15 administrative decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. 16 § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no 17 dispute that Lin’s motion to reopen, filed in 2013, was 18 untimely because his order of removal became final in 2011. 19
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(I). Lin contends, however, 20 that his conversion to Christianity in the United States and 21 the Chinese government’s awareness of his mailing of 22 materials relating to Christianity to his wife’s underground 23

2church in China constitute materially changed country 1 conditions excusing his motion from the applicable time 2 limitation. 3 We find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 4 denying Lin’s motion for failure to demonstrate his prima 5 facie eligibility for relief. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 6 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that an 7 alien’s “ability to secure reopening depends on a 8 demonstration of prima facie eligibility for [relief], which 9 means she must show a ‘realistic chance’ that she will be 10 able to obtain such relief” (citations omitted)). The BIA 11 reasonably relied on the country conditions evidence 12 indicating that China currently allows the practice of 13 Christianity, notwithstanding isolated reports of harassment 14 of some underground church members, a finding that Lin does 15 not specifically challenge on appeal. See Jian Xing Huang 16
v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that 17 absent solid support in the record for the petitioner’s 18 assertion that he would be persecuted, his fear was 19 “speculative at best”). While Lin does challenge the BIA’s 20 consideration of the statements from his wife and her fellow 21 underground church members, the BIA did not err in according 22

3this evidence diminished weight because it was from 1 interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination and 2 was not supported by any independent evidence. See Matter 3 of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010) 4 (rejecting letters from applicant’s relatives and friends 5 because they were “interested witnesses not subject to 6 cross-examination”),overruled in part on other grounds by 7 Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012);see 8 also Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 471 9 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that the weight 10 accorded to evidence lies largely within the agency’s 11 discretion). 12 Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 13 Lin’s motion for failure to demonstrate hisprima facie 14 eligibility for relief, we decline to consider his challenge 15 to the agency’s alternative finding that country conditions 16 had not materially changed. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 17 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are 18 not required to make findings on issues the decision of 19 which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 20
21
22

4For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 2 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 3
FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 7

5