YOUQIANG JI v. BARR (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner YouQiang Ji, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29, 2017 decision of the BIA denying Ji's motion to reopen. In re YouQiang Ji, No. A XXX XX8 717 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA may deny a motion to reopen if “the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought.” INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ji's motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, since he did not submit “clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood that [his] marriage is bona fide.” In re Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (B.I.A. 2002). Although Ji argues that his case should be remanded to the BIA for the agency to consider evidence that his wife's I-130 visa petition has now been approved, we may not consider, or remand for the BIA to consider, such extra-record evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based ․”). The appropriate course is for Ji to submit any additional evidence as part of a motion to reopen before the BIA in the first instance. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 262, 271 (2d Cir. 2007)

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.