Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingmotionasylumvisa
torthearingmotionasylumvisadeportation

Related Cases

Paulino v. Connery
View Case »
Rivas-Martinez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Sissoko v. Rocha
View Case »
United States v. Lefsih
View Case »
Matsuk v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Liu Jin Lin v. Barr

Facts

Liu Jin Lin, a native of China, entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa in 2001 but overstayed. She applied for asylum in 2007 due to fears of persecution related to China's family planning policies, which was initially granted but later overturned by the BIA. In 2018, Lin filed a motion to reopen her case, citing her conversion to Christianity and changes in religious persecution in China. The BIA denied her motion, stating it was time-barred and that the evidence did not support a claim of changed conditions.

Lin was born in Changle City, Fujian Province, China. She entered the United States on November 28, 2001 on a K-1 fianc`visa, which authorized her to remain [*60] in the country for ninety days. However, Lin overstayed her visa. On December 3, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS') served Lin with a Notice to Appear charging her as removable under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). After receiving the Notice to Appear, Lin applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ('CAT'), fearing persecution due to her violation of China's family planning policies.

Issue

Did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Liu Jin Lin's motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on her conversion to Christianity and alleged changes in country conditions in China?

Did the BIA abuse its discretion in concluding that she had failed to establish that country conditions in China had materially changed and thus denying her motion to reopen.

Rule

Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored and must be filed within ninety days of the final order of removal. A motion based on changed country conditions must demonstrate material evidence that was previously unavailable and establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief.

Generally, a petitioner may only file one motion to reopen, and that motion must be filed within ninety days of the date of entry of the final [**6] administrative order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, this limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen to apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of deportation 'based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.' Id. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). In such a case, the motion to reopen must (1) 'adduce material evidence, previously unavailable, showing changed country conditions' and (2) 'make out a prima facie case of eligibility for the [underlying] substantive relief.' Garcia-Aguilar v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 215, 218 (1st Cir. 2019).

Analysis

The court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin's motion. The BIA reviewed the evidence Lin submitted and determined that the conditions in China had not materially changed since her original hearing. The evidence indicated that religious persecution had existed for many years and had not intensified to the degree necessary to warrant reopening her case.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion. Contrary to Lin's suggestions, 'the BIA is under no obligation 'to parse an alien's submissions one by one and cite book and verse when rejecting the alien's conclusions.' [**8] Nantume v. Barr, 931 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir. 2019) (quoting Garcia-Aguilar, 913 F.3d at 221). And here, the BIA did not perform a cursory review of the evidence. Instead, it explicitly identified and considered the evidence that Lin had submitted in support of her motion to reopen, referencing specific exhibits and pages in the record.

Conclusion

The court upheld the BIA's decision, concluding that Lin's petition for review was denied.

For the reasons stated above, Lin's petition for review is denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin's motion to reopen her removal proceedings.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin's motion to reopen her removal proceedings.

You must be