Shiyong Li v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIYONG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71263
Agency No. A087-715-963
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Shiyong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) March 26, 2015 order denying his motion to
reopen proceedings.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71263
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the
denial was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d
977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Li failed to establish
prima facie eligibility for asylum. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228
(9th Cir. 2016). Li did not adduce “credible, direct, and specific evidence” to
demonstrate an objectively well-founded fear that he would be persecuted by the
Chinese government based upon his political activities in the United States. Malty
v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2004). As the BIA explained, Li has not
presented sufficient evidence that the Chinese government will target him in
China. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, Li
is not a high-profile activist, he submitted articles that do not relate to him, and the
letter from his daughter is vague.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --