13-1341 Chen v. Holder BIA A095 799 555 

### 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 21 st** **day of August, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 7 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **HUA CHEI CHEN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-1341** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Mona Liza Fabular Lao, Brooklyn, New** 23 **York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Paul Fiorino, Senior** 27 **Litigation Counsel; Franklin M.** 28 **Johnson, Jr., Trial Attorney, Office** 29 **of Immigration Litigation, Civil** 30 **Division, United States Department** 31 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 32UPON 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 Petitioner Hua Chei Chen, a native and citizen of 5 China, seeks review of a March 13, 2013, decision of the BIA 6 denying her motion to reopen. In re Hua Chei Chen, No. A095 7 799 555 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2013). We assume the parties’ 8 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 9 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.’” See Ali v. 13 Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. 14 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). It is well 15 established that the BIA may deny such a motion on the basis 16 that the alien failed to demonstrate prima facieeligibility 17 for the relief sought, i.e. , a realistic chance that she 18 will be able to establish eligibility. See INS v. Abudu , 19 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988); Poradisova v. Gonzales , 420 F.3d 20 70, 78 (2d Cir. 2005). “This requires the alien to carry 21 the ‘heavy burden’ of demonstrating that the proffered new 22

2evidence would likely alter the result in her case.” Jian 1 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) 2 (quotingAbudu,485 U.S. at 110). 3 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s 4 motion to reopen, as Chen failed to establish her prima 5 facie eligibility for asylum. To establish eligibility for 6 asylum, an applicant like Chen, who does not rely on past 7 persecution, must demonstrate a well-founded fear of future 8 persecution. See8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42);Kyaw Zwar Tun v. 9

INS , 445 F.3d 554, 564 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, she was 10 required to “make some showing that authorities in [her] 11 country of nationality are either aware of [her] activities 12 or likely to become aware of [her] activities.” Hongsheng 13 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). 14 Contrary to Chen’s claim, the agency did not err in 15 declining to give probative weight to the new evidence she 16 submitted in support of her motion to reopen, especially 17 given the IJ’s underlying adverse credibility determination. 18 See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 19 2007). The agency reasonably determined that the evidence, 20 which included, inter alia , an unauthenticated village 21 notice, photographs of her practicing Falun Gong in the 22 United States, an unsworn and unnotarized letter from her 23
3father, and 2007 and 2010 State Department reports, did not 1 demonstrate that Chinese officials knew, or were likely to 2 become aware, of her activities in the United States. See 3 Y.C. v. Holder , No. 11-2749-ag, 741 F.3d 324, 334(2d Cir. 4 2013) (deferring to agency’s determination giving an unsworn 5 letter by an interested witness “very little evidentiary 6 weight” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see alsoXiao 7 Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 8 2006) (holding that weight afforded to applicant’s evidence 9 in immigration proceedings lies largely within the agency’s 10 discretion). 11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 13 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 14
FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 18 19

4