12-2674 Lin v. Holder BIA A077 354 650 

### 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 6 th** **day of November, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 8 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **MEI YUN LIN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-2674** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, N.Y.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Matthew A. Spurlock and Daniel E.** 25 **Goldman (Stuart F. Delery and** 26 **William C. Peachey,** on the brief**)** 27 **Office of Immigration Litigation,** 28 **Civil Division, United States** 29 **Department of Justice, Washington,** 30 **D.C.** 311 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 4 review is DENIED. 5 Mei Yun Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 27, 2012, 7 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Mei 8 Yun Lin , No. A077 354 650 (B.I.A. June 27, 2012). We assume 9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 10 procedural history of this case. We review the BIA’s denial 11 of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. 12
BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We find 13 no abuse of discretion in this case. 14 There is no dispute that Lin’s 2011 motion to reopen 15 was untimely because her administrative removal order became 16 final in 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 17 § 1003.2(c)(2). To the extent Lin contends that the time 18 limitation does not apply because her motion is “based on 19 changed circumstances arising in” China, 8 C.F.R. § 20 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), 21 her arguments are unpersuasive. 22
23
2Initially, the basis of Lin’s motion to reopen – her 1 renewed claim for asylum based on her conversion to 2 Christianity in the United States – was a change in personal 3 circumstances arising in the United States, not a change of 4 conditions arising in China. See 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii) (providing that the 90-day time 6 limitation circumscribes eligibility for relief unless the 7 motion is based on a change in the country to which removal 8 has been ordered); see also Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 9 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008); Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 10 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006). 11 Alternatively, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 12 denying Lin’s motion to reopen based on her failure to 13 demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS v. 14 Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). Initially, the BIA was 15 permitted to afford minimal weight to Lin’s personal 16 statement based on the agency’s uncontested prior adverse 17 credibility determination. Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 18 170 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, Lin’s evidence showing 19 isolated incidents of mistreatment to some Christians in 20 China is insufficient to demonstrate that her fear of 21 returning to China is well-founded. Given that she has only 22

3cited a single incident of mistreatment of Christians in 1 that province, she has not established that the harm she 2 fears rises to the level of persecution in her locality. 3 Xiao Jun Liang v. Holder, 626 F.3d 398, 987 (2d Cir. 2010); 4 see also Jin Xia Zhan v. Holder, 515 F. App’x 2, 3 (2nd Cir. 5 Mar. 20, 2013); In re S-Y-G , 24 I.& N. Dec. 247, 251 (B.I.A. 6 Aug. 2, 2007), nor has she established that authorities in 7 China “are aware of . . . or likely become aware of [her] 8 activities. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 9 142-43 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Accordingly, Lin’s 10 contention that the BIA erred in finding that she failed to 11 demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for asylum based on 12 her subjective fear of returning to Fujian Province lacks 13 merit. 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
20
21
22
4oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3
FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 7 8

5