## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 2790 L I ANG C HEN, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent .
Pe tition fo r Review from an Ord er of the B o ard of Immigration App eals
.

No . A 98 971 887
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 17, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 19, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C i r c uit Ju dg e. Li an gChe n i s a ci ti ze n o fChi na an d an ap p lica n t fo r as yl u m . H e a lso h as be en , up u n til no w, a v i c t i m o fb a d t i ming. A ft e r Ch e n pr e s e nt e d a cl ai m f o r a sy l um b as ed o n h i s wi fe’ s i nv o l unt ar y abo r ti o n, th e A tto r ne y G en eral chan ged the gove rnm en t’s i nt erpr et at i o n o fthe relevants ta tu te s o tha t a spo us e no l o ng e r qua l i fi e s a s a r e fug e e b e c a us e h i s p a r tne r s uffe re d2 N o. 08
- 2790 an i nvol untaryabo rt i on. S ee M a tter of J– S– , 24 I
. & N
. Dec. 5 2 0 , 5 2 3
- 2 4 ( AG 2 0 0 8 )
. B a s e d o n th i s c h a n g e o f l a w, t he B oard of I m m igratio n A p p eals ( “B I A ”) dism issed Ch en ’s appeal bec ause, i t s ai d, Ch en pre sent ed n o evi dence of ot h er p er se c u tio n or re sis ta n c e t o C h in a’s co er c ive fam ily p lan n in g p o l i c y . A fte r th e o ra l arg u m en t in th is c as e, a di ffe r e nt pa ne l o f the c o ur tf ol l owed M at t e rof J –S–a nd denie d a peti ti on f orrevi ew i n a c ase with s i m i l ar

— though n ot identi cal

— f acts . S ee Jin v . Ho lder, 5 7 2 F
. 3 d 3 9 2 ( 7th C ir. 2009). W e see t wo c r i ti ca l di ffer en ce s be twe en Ji n a n d t he pr es en t ca se , a s w e expl ain b el o w. W i th o utc o m m en ting on the m er i ts ofC hen’s cla i m , w e co ncl ud e that he did not have the o pp or tuni ty f ora f ai r hear i ng. A ccor dingl y, w e grant Ch en ’s petition for rev ie w , vacat e the BIA ’s deci si on, and re m and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs. Ch en was born i n Lia nj i ang County i n Fuj i an Pro vi nce, Ch i na, i n N ove m ber19 72. H i s co unty i s o ne o fthi rt een adm i ni str ati ve divi si ons ofFuzho u, the capi talci ty of Fuj ian P ro vin c e. In A p ril 19 96 , w h en h e w as ap p ro x im ate l y 24 ye ar s ol d, he m ar ri ed Ye Duan Juan, a w om an w ho w as em p loyed by the C hin ese C om m un ist Party’s X iaoao T ow ns hip C om m ittee. A s requ ired by Ch ina’s f am i l y pl anni ng pol i cy, hi s w i fe had a n I U D ins er ted after h is son ’s birt h
. Sh e reg u lar ly w en t to th e l o c a l fam ily pla nning offi ce fo r m andator y gyneco l ogi calexam s. Chen al l eg es tha t dur i ng on e s uche xa m , i n May 19 99 , the offi ci al s di sco ver ed that the I U D w as m i ssi ng and that Che n’ s wi fe was pr egna nt . Che n a ss er ts tha t he a nd h is w ife w an te d t h e c h ild , bu t t h at th e o ffice forc ed h is w i fe t o abor t herpre gnancy that day.N o. 08
- 2790 3 F i ve y ea r s l at er, i n J une 20 04, Che n l eft Chi na a nd illegal l y e nter ed the U ni ted S tat es i n J uly
. I n J une 200 5 he a ppl i ed f o r a sy l um , wi thho l di ngo f rem o va l, a nd p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r th e C o n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r t u r e . At the ti m e he appli ed f or asy l um , the BIA c onfer re d autom ati c r efu ge e status o n the spouse ofa perso n f or ced to abort a pr egna nc y ( as wel l a s o n the pe r so n s uffer i ng the for ced ab or tio n )
. S ee M at t e ro f C– Y–Z–

, 2 1 I
. & N. D ec. 915 (BIA 1997) ( e n b anc ); M a tter o f S–L–L– , 2 4 I
. & N. Dec
. 1 ( BI A 20 06 ) ; 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 42 ) ( B) ( “a pe r so n who ha s be enf o r ce d t o abo rt a p reg na nc y o r t o unde r g o i nvol untaryst er i l i zati on” is a re fugee and thus enti tl ed to as y l um )
. Che n a cc o r di ng l y b as ed hi s cl ai m s f o r a sy l um an d w ithh olding of rem oval on th e f orced abortion su ffer ed by h is w ife. H e p r es en te d ev id en c e t o s u p p or t h is cl ai m , i nc l udi nghi s te st i m o ny, hi s wi fe’ s state m en t, a nd seve ra l docum ents. The I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) , however, f ound that C h en h ad n otp re se n te d a c r e d i b le s to ry an d d en ied h is appli cati on. Chen appeal ed to the BIA on M ar ch 13, 20 07. A ye arp as se d , a nd then the pr ove rbi alr ug was pull ed out fro m u n der Chen’ s feet . I n M ay 2008 , A tto rney Gen er alM ukase y r eve rs ed the BIA’s i nter preta ti on o f § 1 101( a) ( 42) ( B). H e co ncl ud ed thata spouse w as not en tit led to auto m ati c r efugee sta tus be cause ofthe partn er ’s fo rc ed ab or tio n . M at t er o f J –S– , 24 I
. & N
. Dec. 52 0 ( A G 2008) ; se e a l so Ji n , 57 2 F
. 3d at[ sl
. o p. 7 ] ( ex pl aini ngthe bac k g r ou nd of M at t e rof J –S–)
. Underthe Att o r ne y Ge ner al ’ s new posi ti on, the spouse m ust instea d prove that he suffer ed pers ecuti on o r has a well

- f ounded fearo f pers ec uti on be cause ofhi s own resistanc e to Ch ina’s4 N o. 08
- 2790
coe rci ve po pu l a t i o n c o nt r o l pr o g r a m. Se e id .; § 1 101( a) ( 42) ( B). W e hav e hel d that the A tto rneyGeneral acte d w i thi n hi s a uthor i ty w hen he m ade thi s chang e. S ee Jin v . H o l d e r, sup ra; see al so Y u v . U .S. A tt’y G en., 568 F. 3d 13 28 (11 th C ir. 20 09 ); Lin -Z hen g v. U .S. A tt’y G en., 55 7 F
. 3d 147, 156-57 (3d C ir. 2009) ( e n b anc ). Fol l owing M atter o

f J –S– , the B I A dism issed Ch en ’s a p p e a l
. B e c a u s e th e B I A i s s u e d i t s o wno p i ni o n, we l i m i t o ur r evi ew to i ts opi ni on. S ee Z h e n g v . Go nz a lez , 40 9 F.3d 804 , 809 (7th C ir. 200 5 ). I m p ortan tly, the B oard expli ci tl y noted that itw as not adopti ng the IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty det erm inat i o n. I ns te ad, i t as su m ed f o r the s ak e o fa r g um en t th atChe n’ s wi fe was f o r ce d t o unde r g o a n abo r ti o n. A fternot in g that Chen no l onge r quali fi ed as a r efugee because o fhi s wife’ s f or ced abo rt i on, the BIA exam i ned the r eco rd f orev i dence of ot her perse cuti on o r of re sis te n c e b y C h en to th e fa m i l y p l an n in g p ro gr am . I t f o und n o s uche vi den ce . I ns tead, the BI A f o cus ed o n the f ac t th atChe n l i ve d i n China f o r fi ve y ea r s afte r the abor ti on. I t di sm i sse d C hen’s appealf orl ack ofev i dence. Bu t the BI A neve r ackno w l edged the f act that Ch en had no r ea so n t o pute vi den ce o fo th erpe r se cut i on i nt o the r ec o r d a t th e ti m e h e fi l ed hi s appl i ca ti o n, b ec au se the law then w as cl ear that he needed onl y to pr ov e h is w i fe’ s f or ced abo rt i on. The sa m e was tr ue atthe ti m e o f hi s hea ri ng and hi s a pp eal. It is unu sualf orthe Board t o con fer autom aticr efugee sta tus b ased on onl y o ne f act, b u t t h at w as th e s ta te of th e la w in th is s p ec ial se tt in g. It is t h er efo re m or e u n d er st an d ab le t h an it ord in ar ily w oul d be that Chen sa w no re as on to fi l l hi s a pp l i cati onN o. 08
- 2790 5

w i th addit i onalf acts j us tifyi ng as yl um o n al ter nati ve gr ounds. This i s th e fi rs t t i m e that Chen has had the o pp or tuni ty to r es po nd t o the g o ve r nm en t’s c r i ti ca l s hi ft i n po si ti o n. Ch en has a s tatutor y r i ght t o “a re aso nabl e op p ortuni ty to exam i ne the evi dence aga i nst [ hi m ] , to pre sent evi dence on [ hi s] o w n behal f, and to cr oss-ex am i ne witnes ses p resen ted by the Go vern m en t.” 8 U
. S.C
. § 1229a(b)(4)( B ); see al so Ke r c i k u v . INS , 314 F.3d 913 , 9 17 (7th C ir. 2003) ( per cu r i am ) ( “I n the conte xt o fpol i ti calas yl um , due proc ess re quir es, am ong othe r thi ngs, thatan a pp l i cant r ecei ve
‘ a m eani ngful opportunity to be hea rd. ’ ”) ( ci ti ng N azarova v . INS , 1 7 1 F
. 3 d 47 8, 48 2 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) )
. I n o u r v i e w, bec au se o f t h e w ay th e proc eed ings u nfolde d i n C he n’s case , he ha s be en depri ved o f t hat s tatutor y o pp or tuni ty. Se e g ener al l y U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on, 45 7 U
. S. 53 7, 54 3 ( 1982 ) ( noti ng t h at “the co m m on- l aw r ule , r eco gni zed i n both ci vi l and cr i m i nal l i ti gat i on, [ i s] ‘t h at a change i n l aw wil l be gi ven e ffect w hile a c as e i s o n dir ect re vi ew , ’ ” quoting Lin k letter v. Wa lk er, 381 U
. S. 6 18, 627 ( 1965 ), w hi ch i n turn ci tes U nit e d S t at e s v. Sc hoon e rPeggy, 1 C ran ch 103 (1801)). The only q u es ti on that r em ai ns i s whether our deci si on i n Ji n pr ec l ude s r el i eff o r Che n. The pe ti ti o ne r i n Ji n , l i ke Ch en, was see ki ng as yl um a n d withhol ding ofr em ova l ba se d o n a f o r ce d abortion. In Ji n, however, hi s r el ati onshi p to the wom an wh o suff er ed the abor ti on was u n c lea r. A t v ar i ous points in the re cor d Jin descr ibed her as “hi s ‘ g i r l f r i e nd , ’ h i s ‘ fi a nc é e ’ a nd a l s o h i s ‘ wi fe . ’ ” 5 72 F. 3d a t [ sl
. o p. 2]
. The IJ deni ed hi s peti ti on, fi nd i ng fi rs t6 N o. 08
- 2790 that “J i n w as not actual l y m ar ri ed to Lin. ” Id
. at [sl
. op. 3]. I n add i ti on, the IJ f ound that “J i n had no t show n th at und er age husband s of pr egnant w i ves sufferper secuti on because of Ch i na’ s f am i l y pla nning p olic y. ” Id. T h e B IA a ffi r med b o th tho s e fi nd i ng s . I n de ny i ng the pe t i ti on f or r ev i ew, thi s co ur t f o und tha t “the r e was a f ai r a m o unt of re c or d ev id en c e t h at [Jin] an d L in w er e n otac tu ally m ar rie d .” Id
. at[ sl
. o p. 5]
. Onlyafter m aki ng tho se obse rv at ion s d id th e c o u r t g o o nto rec og n ize th e ru le i n M at t e rof

J –S– and to com m ent that a r em and w ou ld be fut il e bec au se Ji n presen ted no eviden ce th a t h e personal l y s uffer ed pers ecuti on a s a r esul t ofChina’ s popul ati on co ntro l polic ies. But i t a pp ear s that J i n did not m ake th e proc ed ura l p oint t h a t C he n h as m ad e before th is panel
. I nstea d, he co ntented hi m sel fwith a fro ntal at ta cko n M a tter of J– S– , an d we r ej ec te d tha t ar g um en t on the m er i ts. T he re i s no clou d at allov e r the stat us of C he n’s m arri age , and thus hi s ca se i s di st i ngui shabl e fro m J i n’s o n th at ba si s. F ur th er m o r e, unl i k e J i n, Che n h as no t f orfei te d the pr o ce dur alo ppo r tu ni tyt o a tt emp t t o meetthe n ew lega l st an d ar d s fo r as ylu m . W e c on c l u d e th at h e is en titl ed to that ch an ce. Bec au se th e B I A d ism issed Ch en ’s cl ai m bas ed on the l ack ofev i dence thathe ne verknew he was su pp ose d to gather, we G RANThi s peti ti on f or r e v i e w a nd R EMA ND hi s ca se to the Boa rd f orfurther pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 19- 09