United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 8, 2014*

Decided July 28, 2014

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐1105

YUAN TIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A089‐665‐606

O R D E R

Yuan Tian, a citizen of China who fears harm from her father for coming out as a lesbian,

challenges the denial of her motion for reconsideration with respect to her applications for

asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss the petition

for review in part and deny the petition in part.

At her immigration hearing, Tian testified that she feared harm from her father, who, she

said, threatened herin a letter upon learning two years after her departure to the United States

that she was a lesbian. She described her hometown of Changchun (the capital of Jilin province

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* We granted the petitioner’s unopposed motion to waive oral argument. Thus the

petition is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 14‐1105 Page 2

in northeastern China) as a traditional area where being gay is consideredshameful and treated

as a mental illness; coming of age in that environment, she explains, led her to hide her sexual

orientation from her family. Tian said that her father forced her into an arranged marriage in

2004 and that she left for the United States one year later to escape her husband. She lived

openly as a lesbian in the United States and had one serious relationship that had ended by the

time of her hearing. When her husband contacted her in 2007, she told him that she was gay.

Several months later, Tian testified, she received an angry letter from her father, calling her

“crazy” and “sick” for being a lesbian. She interpreted his statementthat, “You must have your

husband back with you. Otherwise whenever I see you, I want to kill you orI will kill myself,”

as a death threat. She said that if she returned to China the police would not protect her and

would even help her father find her.

The immigration judge denied Tian’s requests for relief. The IJ rejected the asylum

application as untimely, stating that “[t]he Court cannot authenticate the letter and does not

find thatthis constitutes changed circumstances” that would excuse Tian from filing within the

one‐year deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(B). With respect to withholding ofremoval, the

IJ found her testimony unpersuasive and concluded that she failed to provide corroboration

to show that she is a lesbian, such as a letterfrom herformer girlfriend or photographs of their

relationship. The IJ likewise denied her CAT claim based on a lack of evidence to show that she

would be harmed in China. The BIA upheld the denial and supplemented the IJ’s order with

the observation that Tian could not explain how her father obtained her address (she denied

ever giving it to him) and had testified inconsistently about whether other documents were

included with the letter. The BIA also concluded that she had not shown that she would be

tortured by or at the acquiescence of Chinese officials. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). Tian did not

petition for review of that decision.

A month later Tian moved the BIA to reconsider, arguing that it had failed to consider the

totality ofthe circumstances in upholding the IJ’sdenial.In particular, she asserted that she had

testified consistently when she denied knowing how her father obtained her address or not

recalling if herfather’s letter had included other documents. She also argued that hertestimony

alone should have been sufficientto establish her sexual orientation.Regarding her CAT claim,

she maintained that her testimony that police would help her father find her showed that she

would be tortured with the acquiescence of public officials. Tian did not make any arguments

about withholding of removal in her motion to reconsider.

TheBIAdenied the motion to reconsiderfor essentially the same reasons given in its earlier

denial. First, it concluded that Tian had not demonstrated the “reliability and authenticity” of

her father’s letter and thus could not show changed circumstances excusing her untimely

application. Second, concerning the CAT claim, the BIA reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that

Tian failed to show that she would be tortured with the acquiescence of public officials.
No. 14‐1105 Page 3

In herpetition forreview,Tiancontinues topress themerits ofherunderlying applications.

But the government correctly notes that our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the denial of

Tian’s motion to reconsider because it is the only decision she appealed in a timely manner. See

Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824, 829–30 (7th Cir. 2010); Asere v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 378, 380–81

(7th Cir. 2006). We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion.

See Cruz‐Mayaho v. Holder, 698 F.3d 574, 577 (7th Cir. 2012); Muratoski, 622 F.3d at 830.

To the extent that Tian challenges the denial of her motion to reconsider, we understand

her to argue that the BIA did not consider the totality of the circumstances in finding her

father’s letter unreliable. See Kiorkis v. Holder, 634 F.3d 924, 930 n.2 (7th Cir. 2011) (argument

that BIA “applied the incorrect legal standard” is a question of law). But she does not identify

any overlooked evidence; she instead focuses on testimony considered by theBIA(whether she

received documents with the letter and how herfather obtained her address). The BIA applied

the correct legal standard by relying on inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration to conclude

that Tian had not shown changed circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Krishnapillai

v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606, 619 (7th Cir. 2009); Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787–89 (7th Cir.

2008).

Concerning her CAT claim, Tian appears to contend, again, that the BIA failed to consider

the totality of her evidence showing that her life would be threatened in China. In particular,

she points to hertestimony that the police would fail to protect herfrom herfather as sufficient

to show that she would be tortured with the acquiescence of public officials. But the BIA

concluded that Tian had not shown a genuine threat from her father when it rejected the

reliability and authenticity of the letter, so it provided a rational explanation for determining

that Tian had not shown she would be tortured in China. See Victor v. Holder, 616 F.3d 705,

708–09 (7th Cir. 2010); Mungongo v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 531, 534–35 (7th Cir. 2007).

We lack jurisdictionto review Tian’s argument about withholding ofremoval, so that claim

is DISMISSED. The remainder of her petition for review is DENIED.