Li Sheng Wu v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25165
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Wu, a Chinese citizen, entered the U.S. without inspection by February 3, 2006 and was placed in removal proceedings.
- An IJ found Wu admitted the charges and removability after a hearing on April 19, 2006.
- Wu applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief on June 28, 2006; the IJ denied relief on April 14, 2010, and Wu was ordered removed to China.
- The BIA affirmed the denial of relief on July 26, 2011.
- Wu moved to reopen on September 19, 2011 asserting changed country conditions due to Christian faith in the U.S. and increased persecution in China; the BIA denied on June 7, 2012 for lack of prima facie eligibility.
- Wu's petition for review followed the BIA's denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen | Wu contends the BIA ignored material evidence linking his future persecution to religion. | Wu failed to show individualized risk; evidence described general conditions for Christians in China, not Wu's specific risk. | BIA did not abuse discretion; Wu failed to establish prima facie eligibility. |
| Whether evidence showed individualized risk of religious persecution | Wu argues evidence in affidavit shows practicing in unregistered churches would lead to persecution in China. | Record shows no connection between Wu's activities and targeted persecution; evidence was general, not individualized. | No prima facie link between Wu's case and persecution; denied. |
| Standard of review for BIA's decision on motion to reopen | Wu challenges the adequacy of the BIA's reasoning and consideration of evidence. | Court defers to BIA's decision and requires only that reasoning be adequate, not exhaustive. | Court reviews for abuse of discretion; no abuse found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hang Chen v. Holder, 675 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2012) (deference to BIA motion-to-reopen decisions; finality interests)
- Guerrero-Santana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2007) (finality and expeditious processing; standard of review emphasis)
- Le Bin Zhu v. Holder, 622 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2010) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review; substantial evidence standard for factual findings)
- Carter v. I.N.S., 90 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1996) (standard of review for BIA findings)
- Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (requirement that BIA fairly consider evidence and issues)
- Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2003) (prima facie case; evidentiary requirements for relief eligibility)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (establishing prima facie case and material evidence standard)
- Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 2010) (review of BIA findings; substantial evidence standard)
- Decky v. Holder, 587 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2009) (need for individualized risk linking to country conditions)
- Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007) (individualized risk required for asylum relief)
- Seng v. Holder, 584 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (reliance on generalized country conditions is misplaced)
- Zheng v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2005) (more likely than not standard for withholding relief; per-country-ground analysis)