NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2583

___________

MEI LIN,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A099-930-856)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 17, 2013

Before: RENDELL, ALDISERT and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 18, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Mei Lin petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review.
2

Lin, a citizen of China, entered the United States in May 2001. In December 

2006, she applied for asylum and withholding of removal. She alleged that she would be 

persecuted under the family planning policy. In February 2007, she was charged as 

removable as an alien without valid, unexpired documents at the time of her entry. Lin 

conceded removability. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lin removable 

and denied relief. Lin appealed and subsequently filed a motion to remand with the BIA. 

She sought to raise a new claim that she would be persecuted based on her Christian 

religion if removed to China. The BIA dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to 

remand, and Lin filed a timely petition for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252.

First, Lin argues that the BIA erred in determining that she had not met her burden 

of proof. She contends that she has established that it is more likely than not that she will 

be forcibly sterilized if returned to China. The BIA observed that the record reflected 

that physical coercion is uncommon and unsanctioned to achieve compliance with the 

family planning policy and that most violators of the policy paid fines. Lin contends that 

the fine that will be levied upon her would constitute economic persecution. The BIA 

noted that Lin had not shown that she would be unable to pay the fine. It observed that 

the enforcement of the policies in Fujian were described as lax and uneven in the 2007 

China: Profile of Asylum Claims and that couples may be allowed to pay the fine in 

installments. Lin does not challenge the BIA’s conclusions on this issue. Lin has not 
3

shown that the record compels a finding that she has a well-founded fear of future 

persecution or that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted.

Next, Lin contends that the BIA erred in failing to credit her documents. The BIA 

gave little weight to the village committee notices Lin submitted because they were 

unauthenticated photocopies that did not identify the author and were obtained for the 

purpose of the hearing. We have held that such unauthenticated documents may properly 

be discounted. Ying Chen v. Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 112, 117 (3d Cir. 2011). Lin asserts 

that the documents were authenticated through credible testimony. However, the page of 

the appendix to which she cites is part of the IJ’s opinion and does not contain or refer to 

any credible testimony authenticating the documents. While the IJ found Lin to be 

credible, her credible testimony cannot establish the authenticity of documents sent from 

China because she has no personal knowledge of their authenticity.

Lin also contends that the BIA failed to give proper weight to evidence of the 

sterilization of other Chinese citizens on their return to China. The BIA gave little weight 

to the affidavit of Jin Fu Chen because his statement was unsworn, not notarized, and was 

prepared for another asylum applicant’s hearing. J.A. at 5, 2076. The BIA noted that no 

efforts were made to establish the authenticity or reliability of the documents and that 

Chen had not provided details to show that he was forcibly sterilized. The affidavit of 

Mei Yun Chen was likewise unsworn and unauthenticated. J.A. at 1168. The BIA did 

not err in discounting these documents.
4

Finally, Lin argues that the BIA erred in denying the motion to remand because 

she made a prima facie showing of a well-founded fear of persecution based on her 

Christian religion. She submitted, inter alia, an updated asylum application, a baptism 

certificate, a statement from her father, and background documents. She asserted that in 

November 2010, a few months after the IJ denied her asylum application, her parents’ 

underground church was raided and her father was detained and beaten. A few months 

later, Lin was baptized. The BIA concluded that Lin had not shown that the Chinese 

government was or would be aware of her religious activities and would mistreat her.1 It 

further observed that aliens may not manufacture new asylum claims by changing their 

personal circumstances. See Liu v. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 145, 151 (3d Cir. 2009). Lin 

has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to remand. 

For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review. 

 

1 We note that Lin testified that if removed to China, she would live with her husband’s 

family, which is an hour away from her family. J.A. at 547, 572.