Lin v. Yates
676 F. App'x 78
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Qin Di Lin, a Chinese national, sought review of the BIA’s June 15, 2015 denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely.
- Lin’s underlying removal order became final in 2003; his motion to reopen was filed in 2014, beyond the statutory 90-day filing period.
- Lin argued the untimeliness exception for changed country conditions (for Christians in China) applied, supporting reopening to seek asylum.
- The BIA compared country-condition evidence at the time of the merits hearing with evidence submitted with the motion and found no material change regarding government targeting of underground/house churches.
- The BIA considered multiple reports (including State Department and Congressional-Executive Commission reports) and concluded conditions continued; it rejected Lin’s claim that the agency ignored contrary evidence.
- Because the BIA found no material change, it denied the untimely motion to reopen; the Second Circuit denied review, upholding the BIA’s exercise of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an untimely motion to reopen can be excused based on materially changed country conditions for Christians in China | Lin argued country conditions worsened for Christians since 2003 and his 2013–14 evidence shows a material change warranting reopening to seek asylum | Government argued the evidence showed continuation, not change, in targeting of underground/house churches and thus did not meet the statutory exception | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA finding no material change; motion properly denied as untimely |
| Whether the BIA improperly cherry-picked or ignored evidence (e.g., ChinaAid report) | Lin claimed the BIA selectively quoted and discounted favorable evidence, failing to consider the ChinaAid report showing worsened persecution | Government maintained the BIA reasonably weighed and addressed the record and was not required to parse every piece of evidence | Denied — court presumes agency considered the record; BIA gave reasoned consideration and was within its discretion |
| Standard of review for denial of motion to reopen | Lin implicitly sought de novo review of factual/country condition findings | Government urged deferential abuse-of-discretion and substantial-evidence review of country-condition factual findings | Held — abuse-of-discretion review for reopening; substantial-evidence review for BIA’s factual findings |
| Whether the court must reach prima facie eligibility for relief after finding timeliness dispositive | Lin argued merits (prima facie asylum eligibility) mattered | Government argued timeliness is dispositive so merits need not be reached | Court declined to reach prima facie eligibility because the timeliness ruling was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir.) (standard: review denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (substantial-evidence review of BIA country-condition findings)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (presumption that agency considered all evidence; weight of country-condition evidence is agency discretion)
- Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270 (2d Cir.) (BIA need not expressly parse every piece of evidence if it provides reasoned consideration)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (Sup. Ct.) (agency may deny an untimely motion to reopen for failure to show changed country conditions or prima facie eligibility)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (Sup. Ct.) (courts need not decide unnecessary issues)