11-1834-ag Shi v. Holder BIA A077 341 285 

### 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 30 th** **day of January, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 7 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 8 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **SHI HAO SHI, AKA SHAOHUA LI,** 13 **AKA SHI HAO JIN,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 11-1834-ag** 17 **NAC** 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent**.** 21

**_______________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Zhao Wang, New York, New York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant** 27 **Director; Tracie N. Jones, Trial** 28 **Attorney, Office of Immigration** 29 **Litigation, United States Department** 30 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for 3 review is DENIED. 4 Shi Hao Shi, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 25, 2011, 6 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Shi 7 Hao Shi , No. A077 341 285 (B.I.A. Apr. 25, 2011). We assume 8 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 9 procedural history of this case. 10 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 11 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s 12 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. 13 Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v. 14 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). Aliens seeking to 15 reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later 16 than 90 days after the date on which the final 17 administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is 19 undisputed that Shi’s November 2010 motion to reopen was 20 untimely, because the BIA issued its final order of removal 21 in 2003, and number-barred, because it is his second motion 223 to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C)(i); see also 1 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time and number 2 limitations for filing a motion to reopen do not apply if 3 the motion is “based on changed country conditions arising 4 in the country of nationality or the country to which 5 removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and 6 was not available and would not have been discovered or 7 presented at the previous proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 9 In this case, the agency did not abuse its discretion 10 in denying Shi’s motion to reopen as untimely and number11 barred. The agency reasonably relied on the IJ’s underlying 12 adverse credibility determination to decline to credit Shi’s 13 uncorroborated and unauthenticated evidence purporting to 14 establish changed country conditions. See Qin Wen Zheng v. 15 Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007). 16 Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 17 conclusion that the background materials do not demonstrate 18 a change in country conditions material to Shi’s claim that 19 he is eligible for relief. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 20 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). The country conditions 21 materials provided by Shi did not support his contention 224 that he would be persecuted for practicing Christianity in 1 China because the change in Chinese regulations he relies on 2 pre-dates the information in the State Department reports 3 cited by the BIA by approximately four years. As the BIA 4 found, the 2009 State Department report reflects that, while 5 the government requires churches to register and restricts 6 participation in unregistered or house churches, “freedom to 7 participate in religious activities continued to increase in 8 many areas.” The Religious Freedom report reflects that the 9 Chinese government’s interference with unregistered churches 10 varied depending on the location, and that between 50 and 70 11 million people in China practiced Christianity without 12 government interference. Although both reports reflect that 13 church leaders and unregistered house churches face 14 occasional harassment, nothing in the background materials 15 supports Shi’s claim that he will be harassed or tortured on 16 the basis of his faith if he returns to China. Absent 17 “solid support” in the record that his fear is objectively 18 reasonable, Shi’s claim of future persecution is 19 “speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 20 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005);see Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 21 154, 163-66. 22

235 Finally, the agency properly concluded that Shi’s 1 conversion to Christianity in the United States constituted 2 a self-induced change in personal circumstances that did not 3 merit an exception to the time and number limitations 4 applicable to motions to reopen. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 5 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the agency 6 did not abuse its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to 7

reopen. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 16

FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18 19 20