UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2342

BIFENG LIU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: July 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart Altman, LAW OFFICE OF STUART ALTMAN, New York, New York, 

for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. 

Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay Corliss, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bifeng Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. 

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 

of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2011); INS v. Doherty, 502 

U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 

(4th Cir. 2009). The Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is 

reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen 

are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the 

deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United 

States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The motion 

“shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to 

be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by 

affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(1) (2011). It “shall not be granted unless it 

appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is 

material and was not available and could not have been 

discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id.

This court has also recognized three independent 

grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be 

denied: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case 
3

for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has 

not introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and 

(3) where relief is discretionary, the alien would not be 

entitled to the discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS, 

146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 

94, 104-05 (1988)). This court will reverse a denial of a 

motion to reopen only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or 

contrary to law.” Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

In the context of a motion to reopen immigration 

proceedings, a prima facie showing “‘includes not only that 

there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements 

for the relief sought are satisfied, but also a reasonable 

likelihood that a grant of relief may be warranted as a matter 

of discretion.’” M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990) 

(quoting Marcello v. INS, 694 F.2d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir. 1983)

(emphasis omitted)).

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion finding that Liu failed to make a prima facie showing 

that he was eligible for asylum. The evidence Liu submitted 

fell short of showing that he had a well-founded fear of 

persecution by the Chinese government based on his political 

activities here in the United States. 
4

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED