Jiang Jiang v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Jinfang Jiang petitions for review from the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and history of the case, we need not recount it here. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, so “[t]he decision of the BIA should be left undisturbed unless it is ‘arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’ ” Chang Hua He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002)).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Jiang failed to “establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Feng Gui Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003). “[T]he starting point for determining whether there is objective evidence supporting this fear [of returning to China] is proof of the details of the family planning policy relevant to each individual case.” In re J-H-S- 24 I. & N. Dec. 196, 198 (BIA 2007). “If an applicant has established the details of the specific ‘policy1 applicable in his or her case, a…