Haizem Liu v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16716
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Liu, a native of China, entered without inspection in 2001; an IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief in 2003 and ordered removal; the BIA summarily affirmed in 2004.
- In June 2012 Liu moved to reopen based on changed country conditions, asserting she converted to Christianity in 2011 and would attend unregistered churches in China.
- Her motion relied on a new affidavit, an asylum application, a short letter from a friend in China claiming detention for Christianity, State Department and Congressional-Executive Commission reports, NGO materials, and news articles.
- The BIA denied reopening: it treated Liu’s conversion as a personal change (not a country-condition change), gave the friend’s letter little weight, and concluded the record showed ongoing — not materially worsened — conditions for unregistered Christians since 2003.
- The First Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and denied Liu’s petition for review, concluding the BIA reasonably compared post-2003 evidence to the 2003 baseline and found no intensified persecution warranting an exception to the 90-day filing rule.
Issues
| Issue | Liu's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA erred in discounting friend’s letter | Letter shows recent detention and supports changed conditions | Letter is scant, self-serving, prepared for proceedings, and unreliable | BIA properly gave the letter little weight; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether evidence shows changed country conditions for Christians in unregistered churches since 2003 | Post-2003 reports and news show an intensifying crackdown; China Aid metrics indicate sharp increase | State Dept. and other authoritative reports show problems are longstanding and ongoing, not worsened materially | BIA reasonably found no material deterioration; motion to reopen time-exception not met |
| Whether conversion to Christianity can constitute changed country conditions | Conversion demonstrates present risk and supports reopening | Conversion is a change in personal circumstances, not country conditions | Court accepts BIA that conversion is a personal change and cannot trigger the time-exception |
| Whether petitioner made prima facie case of persecution such that reopening warranted | Liu would be persecuted upon return for attending unregistered churches | No evidence authorities know or would discover Liu’s practice; risk not established | Court declines to decide because failure to show changed country conditions is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hang Chen v. Holder, 675 F.3d 100 (1st Cir.) (BIA has wide discretion on motions to reopen; public interest in finality)
- Le Bin Zhu v. Holder, 622 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (new evidence must be material, previously unavailable, and show intensification of conditions)
- Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir.) (where strong new evidence shows worsening country conditions, reopening may be required)
- Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir.) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for BIA motions-to-reopen decisions)
- Tawadrous v. Holder, 565 F.3d 35 (1st Cir.) (evidence must show intensification, not mere continuation)
- Zheng v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 70 (1st Cir.) (self-serving affidavits from petitioner/family have limited evidentiary value)