13-4783 Wang v. Lynch BIA A097 663 623 

### 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. 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 1 st** **day of December, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **REENA RAGGI,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YA LING L. WANG, AKA YALING WANG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-4783** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1**  19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, Robert Duk-Hwan Kim,** 23 **New York, NY.** 24 25

1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.**FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 1 **General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant** 2 **Director; Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney,** 3 **Office of Immigration Litigation,** 4 **United States Department of Justice,** 5 **Washington, D.C.** 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Ya Ling L. Wang, a native and citizen of 12 China, seeks review of a November 25, 2013, decision of the 13 BIA denying her motion to reopen proceedings. In re Ya Ling 14 L. Wang, No. A097 663 623 (B.I.A. Nov. 25, 2013). We assume 15 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history in this case. 17 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 18 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s 19 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” See Ali v. 20 Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citingINS v. 21 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). When the BIA 22 considers relevant evidence of country conditions in 23 evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual 24 findings under the substantial evidence standard. Jian Hui 25 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 26

2The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s 1 motion for failure to establish her prima facie eligibility 2 for relief. INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988); Jian 3 Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 168. Although record evidence 4 indicated China’s detention of some house church leaders and 5 harassment of church members, the BIA reasonably found that 6 the focus remains on house church leaders absent isolated 7

occurrences. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 172 ; Jian Xing 8 Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005). 9 Moreover, despite the occasional harassment of house church 10 members discussed in the country conditions evidence, 11 harassment does not rise to the level of harm required for 12 an asylum claim.Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 433 13 F.3d 322, 341 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the evidence 14 does not show a reasonable possibility that Wang will be 15 persecuted as a house church member. 16 To the extent Wang argues that her mother’s letter 17 shows a reasonable possibility that Wang will be persecuted, 18 the BIA reasonably found that the letter was entitled to 19 diminished weight because it was uncorroborated, written by 20 an interested witness, and its reliability was particularly 21 limited in light of Wang’s prior adverse credibility 22

3determination. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 1 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Qin Wen Zheng v. 2 Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). Even if 3 given probative weight, the letter does not show that 4 Chinese authorities are likely to discover Wang and 5 persecute her for practicing Christianity because it only 6 discusses the targeting of Wang’s parents. See Hongsheng 7 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). 8 Wang’s argument that the BIA applied an overly 9 stringent standard when considering whether she showed her 10 prima facie eligibility for asylum –- stating that there was 11 no indication that she would “likely suffer” persecution, 12 rather than finding that she did not show a “realistic 13 chance” of eligibility –- is also unpersuasive. Despite its 14 isolated use of unclear language, a review of the BIA’s 15 decision as a whole makes evident that the BIA simply 16 faulted Wang for failing to show that she would even 17 potentially be subject to persecution in China. 18 Consequently, because the BIA applied the correct standard, 19 there is no basis for remand. 20 Because the BIA’s conclusion, that Wang did not show 21 her prima facie eligibility for asylum, is dispositive of 22

4her motion, we do not address her argument that the BIA 1 abused its discretion in finding that she did not show 2 materially changed country conditions. Abudu , 485 U.S. at 3
104-05; INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5 DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal 6 that the Court previously granted in this petition is 7 VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 8 this petition is DENIED 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(d)(1). Any other motions that may be 12 outstanding are DENIED as moot. 13
FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15 16 17

5