LI v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-05No. No. 15-71263

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Li failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum.

Shiyong Li, a Chinese national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. Li had argued that he should be eligible for asylum based on a fear of persecution by the Chinese government due to his political activities in the United States. The court reviewed the BIA's decision for abuse of discretion, applying a standard that required reversal only if the denial was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.

The court found that the BIA properly concluded Li had not met the threshold requirements for asylum eligibility. Specifically, Li failed to provide credible, direct, and specific evidence demonstrating an objectively reasonable fear of persecution by China. The opinion noted that Li's evidence was insufficient: he was not a prominent activist, the articles he submitted were unrelated to him personally, and supporting documentation from his daughter lacked sufficient detail. Because Li did not establish that the Chinese government would actually target him if he returned to China, the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen asylum proceedings
Whether the applicant presented credible evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution based on political activities
Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence that the Chinese government would target him

Procedural posture

Li petitioned for review of the BIA's March 26, 2015 order denying his motion to reopen proceedings in his asylum case.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Shiyong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) March 26, 2015 order denying his motion to reopen proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Li failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016). Li did not adduce “credible, direct, and specific evidence” to demonstrate an objectively well-founded fear that he would be persecuted by the Chinese government based upon his political activities in the United States. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2004). As the BIA explained, Li has not presented sufficient evidence that the Chinese government will target him in China. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, Li is not a high-profile activist, he submitted articles that do not relate to him, and the letter from his daughter is vague.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.