Chunli Wu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

11-71079Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 20, 2013

Full text

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNLI WU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71079
Agency No. A075-654-696
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Chunli Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71079 2
denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petition for review.
The immigration judge previously found that Wu’s original application for
asylum was frivolous, and Wu has not shown that the finding has been disturbed.
Accordingly, Wu is permanently barred from receiving asylum in the United
States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wu failed to
show prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal where Wu did not make
any substantive arguments for withholding of removal to the BIA. See Ali v.
Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1029 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing asylum applications
are automatically considered requests for withholding of removal but noting
burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum); Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 986 (court defers to BIA’s exercise of discretion unless arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law).
Finally, we reject Wu’s contention that the BIA’s consideration of her
claims was inadequate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.