UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2305

YANG ZHEN QIU, a/k/a Yoag Zhen Qiu, a/k/a Xiang Qiu,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: June 20, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,

Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Brianne Whelan Cohen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Yang Zhen Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s 

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

of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen 

the proceedings. We conclude the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the motion, and we deny the petition for 

review.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), there is 

no time limit for a motion to reopen an asylum proceeding if the 

applicant claims changed country conditions and evidence of such 

change is material and was not available and would not have been 

discovered or presented at the previous proceeding. “A motion 

to reopen proceedings 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). This court reviews the denial 

of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); 

Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). 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. 
3

Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). 

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 

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 v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th 

Cir. 2009). 

In the context of a motion to reopen immigration 

proceedings, in order to make a prima facie case, Qiu must 

present objective evidence showing a reasonable likelihood that

she can establish entitlement to relief. Sharder v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 503 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Jian Hui 

Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (alien must 

show that the new evidence would likely alter the result of the 

case); M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990). 

Because Qiu’s claim is not based on past persecution, 

she must show a well-founded fear of persecution based on a 
4

protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th 

Cir. 2004). The well-founded fear standard contains both a 

subjective and an objective component. The objective element 

requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a 

reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution. 

Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

2006). 

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that Qiu submitted evidence that was not 

previously unavailable. We further conclude the Board did not 

abuse its discretion in finding that Qiu did not meet the 

standard for reopening based on changed country conditions 

announced in Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 251-52 (BIA 

2007). Substantial evidence supports the finding that Qiu did 

not show a change in country conditions that would support a

well-founded fear of persecution in someone with her 

circumstances. 

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