2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-20-2010 

# S u Y an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1796

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S u Y an v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 727. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/727

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT



### _____________ No. 09- 1796

_____________ S U M E I Y A N , Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

___________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 072 493 272 I m m i gr at i on J udge: Fr eder i c G . L eeds

__________________________________

A r gued : J une 2, 2010 B efore: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( fi l ed: A ugus t20, 2010 ) R ober tJ . A di nol fi , E s q. ( A r gued) L oui s & A di nol fi 110 W al l St r eet 11t h Fl oor N ew Y or k, N Y 10007 J ohn C hang, E s q. Sui t e 2001

### 2

401 B r oadw ay N ew Y or k, N Y 10013 C ouns el forPet i t i oner R egi na B yr d, E s q. Susa n K . H ous er , E s q. T hom as W . H us s ey , E s q. J us t i n R . M arkel , E s q. ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O . B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el forR es pondent

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. X i ao W ei Y e, aka Su M ei Y an ( “Y an”) , pet i t i ons thi s C ourtt o r evi ew a fi nal or der of r emoval i s s ued byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . A n I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed herappl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on under t he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T he B I A di s m i s s ed herappea l . Forthe r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yh e rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I . Y a n is a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f th e P e o p le’ s R e p u b lic o f C h in a . S h e w a s b o rn in Z hej i ang Pr ovi nce on O ct ober29, 1974. Y an arr i ved i n N ew ark, N ew J er s eyon N ovember5, 1992 and, upon herarr i val , the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce

### 3

(“ IN S ” ) d e tain e d h e r. T h e IN S iss u e d h e r a f o rm I-1 2 2 c h a rg in g h e r a s e x c lu d a b le pur s uantt o § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( decl ar i ng i m m i gr ant s “noti n pos s es s i on of a va l i d unexpi r ed i m m i gr antvi s a” i nadmi s s abl e) and § 2 1 2 (a)(6)(C ) (m ak ing ali en s w h o m isr ep rese n t a m aterial fa ct t o p roc u re e n try i nadmi s s i bl e) , and r el eas ed heron par ol e. Y an fa i l ed t o appea ratherJ anuary22, 1993 hear i ng and w as or der ed t o be exc l uded and de por t ed i n abs ent i a pur s uantt o § 2 1 2 (a)(7)(A )(i )(I ). O n M ay25, 1993, Y an fi l ed foras y l um thr ough a tr avel agenc y , cl ai m i ng pol i t i cal per s ecut i on bas ed on i nvol vementi n a s tudentm ovement . T hatappl i cat i on w as a p p a re n tly n e v e r a d

ju d ic a te d , a lth o u g h th e re a s o n f o r t h a t is u n c le a r f

ro m th e re c o rd . Y a n w a s m a rrie d in th e U n ited S tate s o n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 9 7 . S h e g a v e b irth to tw o ch il d ren in the U n it ed S tat es – a so n , b o rn Ja n u ary3 1 , 1 9 9 9 , an d a d au g h ter, b o rn O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 . O n N ovember30, 2006, overfi ve y ear s aft erthe bi r t h of hers econd c hi l d, Y an fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen the exc l us i on pr ocee di ngs , cl ai m i ng thats he fa i l ed t o appea rat her January22 , 19 93 heari ng becau se she di d n ot r ecei ve n oti ce of the h eari ng . S he als o i ncl uded a ne w appl i cat i on foras y l um and cl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and w ith h o ld in g u n d e r th e C A T b a se d o n th e b irth o f h e r tw o c h ild re n in th e U n ited S tate s in vi ol at i on of C hi na’ s one- chi l d pol i cy . T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y( “D H S”) fil ed an o p p o sit ion to the m o ti o n to reo p en . O n Jan u ary2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the IJ g ran ted Y an ’s

### 4

m ot i on t o r eopen. A ta hea r i ng on M ar ch 21, 2008, Y an t es t i fi ed i n s uppor tof hernew appl i cat i on f o r re lief. S h e re c a n ted th e c o n ten ts o f h e r f irst a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , an d tes tifie d th a t a t r avel agenc yfi l ed the appl i cat i on w i t houti nform i ng herof w hati tw as . Y an t es t i fi ed t hats he fe ar ed per s ecut i on bas ed on the C hi nes e Fami l yPl anni ng Pol i cy : “[b] eca us e I al r eadyhave tw o ki ds . . . i f I go back t o C hi na, I w i l l be per s ecut ed, I w i l l be s t er i l i zed. ” J oi ntA ppendi x ( “J A ”) 152. Y an s t at ed thats he knew s ever al peopl e w ho had bee n s t er i l i zed byt he C hi nes e governm ent( i ncl udi ng herm other ) , butthats he di d notknow anybodyw ho had bee n s entback t o C hi na fr om the U ni t ed St at es and s t er i l i zed f or havi ng m or e than one c hi l d w hi l e i n the U ni t ed St at es . Y an al s o t es t i fi ed thati n or derfor her chi l dren t o att end schoo l , she w ou l d h ave to r egis t er the ch i l dren w i t h the C hinese g o v e rn m e n t, th e re b ya le rt in g th e g o v e rn m e n t to th e f a c t th a t s h e h a d tw o c h ild re n . In su p p o rt o f

h e r a p p lica tio n , Y a n su b m itt e d h e r m a rria g e c e rtific a te, th e b irth c e rt if ic a te s o f h e r t w o c h ild re n , a n d b a c k g ro u n d e v id e n c e o n c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s in C h in a . She al s o s ubm i t t ed a c er t i fi ed not i ce f r om Y ongJ i a C ount yV i l l age A dm i ni s t r at i on ( t he

“ c e r t i f i c a t e ” ) , wh i c h s t a t e s t h a tCh i n e s e c i t i z e n s wh o h a v e a l r e a d yg i v e n b i r t h t o two c h ild re n a re “ tar g e ts f

o r ste riliza tio n .” J A 4 2 2 . A c c o rd in g to th e c e rtific a te: [C ]hi l dren given b i rth b yC hinese ci t i zens i n the U nit ed S t at es as excess b ir th c h ild re n w ill b e c o u n te d b yth e F a m ily P la n n in g ’s re g u la tio n s . A c c o rd in g to re g u latio n u n d e r Z h e Jia n g P ro v in c e P o p u latio n a n d F a m ily Pl anni ng A dm i ni s t r at i on, anyC hi nes e r es i dentw ho gave bi r t h abr oad, upon r etur ni ng t o t he C ount r yt o r egi s t erhous ehol d, even i f hol di ng ci t i zen [ s i c] of anothercountr y , ar e s t i l l admi ni s t er ed as a C hi nes e ci t i zen.

### 5

J A 4 2 2 . T he I J deni ed al l r el i ef on M ar ch 21, 2008. T he I J s us t ai ned the mi s r epr es ent at i on char ge under§ 212( a) ( 6) ( C ) , fi ndi ng thatY an w as nottruthful i n her1993 as y l um appl i cat i on. H e found thathernew as y l um cl ai m w as t i m e- barr ed. T he I J al s o deni ed as y l um as a mat t erof di s cr et i on bas ed on Y an’ s pr i orfal s e cl ai m and the fa ctthat re m o v a l w o u ld n o t d isru p t f a m ilyu n ity , as Y a n ’s h u sb a n d a n d f a m ilyw o u ld re tu rn w ith her , and the r es tof Y an’ s fami l yr es i des i n C hi na. T he I J deni ed w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and C A T r el i ef, fi ndi ng t hatt her e w as no authent i cat ed evi dence thatC hi na s t er i l i zes p eo p le w h o are sen t bac k to C h ina a fter h av ing ch il d ren in the U n it ed S tat es. T h e IJ found Y an’ s t es t i m onyw i t h r es pectt o t he mer i t s of hernew appl i cat i on t o be cr edi bl e, butdet erm i ned thatherfea rw as unfounded. Y an appe al ed, and the B I A di s m i s s ed herappea l . T he B I A hel d t hatY an w as excl udabl e bas ed on § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , and thus decl i ned t o r eac h t he i s s ue of w hether the m isr ep rese n tat ion ch arg e w as p rop erlysu stai n ed . T h e B IA d eterm ined that Y an ’s a s yl u m c l a i m w a s t i m e - b a r r e d a n d c o n c l u d e d th a te v e n i f Y a n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n w a s t i m e l y, she had no tdem on strat ed thatshe qu al i fi ed fo r as y l um becau se she di d n ot es t abli sh past per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. T he B I A al s o concl uded that Y an fa i l ed t o qual i fyforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and C A T r el i ef. Ya n t i me l yp e t i t i o n e d t h i s Co u r tf o rr e v i e w. II.

### 6

W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . W hen the B I A i s s ues i t s ow n deci s i on on t he mer i t s , as i tdi d her e, w e r evi ew th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . S e e K a p lu n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 6 0 2 F .3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo, s ubj ectt o appl i cabl e pr i nci pl es of age ncy defe r ence underC hevr on U . S. A . , I nc. v. N atur al R es our ces D efe ns e C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837 ( 1984) . I d. W e r evi ew fi ndi ngs of fa ctt o det erm i ne w hethertheyar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence ; s uch fi ndi ngs ar e conc l us i ve “unl es s a r eas onabl e adj udi cat or w oul d be compel l ed t o arr i ve ata contr aryconcl us i on. ” C amar a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 580 F. 3d 196, 201 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “[T] he admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” ). III . Y a n a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rr e d in h o ld in g th a t h e r a s y lu m c la im w a s tim e -b a rr e d . She al s o as s er t s t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence does nots uppor tthe B I A ’ s deci s i on t o denyher asy l um , C A T , and w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al cl ai m s. W e rej ectbo t h co ntent i on s. A . We f i r s tc o n s i d e rYa n ’ s c l a i m th a th e ra s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n wa s n o tt i me - b a r r e d . An ali en m u st fil e h is or h er a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n “w ith in 1 y ea r af ter th e d ate o f th e a li en ’s a rriv a l in th e U n ited S tate s.” Illeg a l Im m ig ra tio n R e f o rm a n d Im m ig ra n t R e sp o n sib ili ty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“ IIR IR A ” ) § 6 0 4 (a ), P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 -2 0 8 , S e p t. 30 , 1 9 9 6 , co d if ied a t 8

### 7

U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) . T he one- y earper i od “s hal l be ca l cul at ed fr om the dat e of the a lie n ’s la s t a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s o r A p ri l 1 , 1 9 9 7 , w h ic h e v e r i s la te r.” 8 C .F .R . § 1208. 4( a) ( 2) ( i i ) . A n unt i m el yappl i cat i on m aybe cons i der ed i f the appl i cantcan demonstr at e “c hanged c i r cumst ance s w hi ch mat er i al l yaff ectthe appl i cant ’ s el i gi bi l i t yfor a s y lu m ” o r “ e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s re la tin g to th e d e la y .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ). Y an ar gues t hatt he B I A err ed byappl y i ng the one- y eart i m e bart o heras y l um a p p lic a tio n b e c a u s e th e b a r d o e s n o t a p p ly to e x c lu s io n p ro c e e d in g s th a t p re -d a te II R IR A . A c c o rd in g to Y a n , ap p ly in g th e o n e -y e a r b a r to h e r a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w o u ld b e u n f a irly r etr oact i ve. T he gr antof Y an’ s m ot i on t o r eopen va cat ed the 1993 or derof deport at i on a n d c o n tin u e d th e o rig in a l p ro c e e d in g s. S e e B ro n isz v . A sh c ro f t, 37 8 F .3 d 6 3 2 , 6 3 7 (7 th C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hata mot i on t o r eopen va cat es the or i gi nal or derand r ei ns t at es ea rl ier i m m igrati o n p roc ee d ing s); L o p ez -R u iz v. A sh cro ft, 2 9 8 F . 3 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 7 (9th C ir . 2002) ( “The B I A ’ s gr ant i ng of the mot i on t o r eopen means ther e i s no l ongera fi nal deci s i on t o r evi ew . ”) . I tdi d not“tr ans por t ” Y an bac k i n t i m e t o gi ve herthe “be nefi tof t he i m m i gr at i on l aw s as t heys t ood pr i ort o t he pas s age of I I R I R A . ” See Las zcz v. A sh c ro f t, 38 1 F .3 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 4 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). Y a n ’s r e tro a c tiv ityc laim d e p e n d s e n tirely o n th e th e o ryth a t th e m o tio n to re o p e n re su rre c ted th e p ro c e d u ra l ru les a s th e yp re v io u sly exi s t ed. B eca us e w e r ej ectt hatar gum ent , and hol d t hatthe gr antof the mot i on t o r eopen r ei ns t at ed Y an’ s pr ocee di ngs i n a pos t - I I R I R A r egi m e, thi s cas e does notpr es entan i s s ue o f re tr o a c tiv ity. S e e id .

### Be c aus e we de c i de that Yan’ s a s ylum

a ppl i c at i on wa s t i m e - barr e d, we ne e d not 1 

### a d dr e s s h e r

c l a i m th at

th e B I Ae rr e di nr

u l i n gth at s h e d i dn o t

qu a l i f y f o r a s ylum. 8 Y a n a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e tim e b a r d o e s n o t a p p ly to e x c lu s io n p ro c e e d in g s . H o w e v e r, th e re is n o th in g in th e sta tu to rylan g u a g e to in d ica te th a t th e tim e b a r a p p lies to r emoval , butnotexcl us i on, pr ocee di ngs . A s not ed above , the t i m e barr equi r es an al i en appl y i ng foras y l um t o “demonstr at e[] bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatthe appl i cat i on has been f

i l ed w i t hi n 1 y earaft erthe dat e of the al i en’ s arr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1158 ( a) ( 2) ( B ) . T hi s l anguage does notpr ecl ude appl i cat i on of the one- y earbart o excl us i on pr ocee di ngs . W e agr ee w i t h t he B I A ’ s concl us i on that“the di s pos i t i ve fa ct orher e i s t he 2007 fi l i ng, notthe fa ctthatthes e pr ocee di ngs ar e exc l us i on a n d n o t r e m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s .” J A 3 . Fort hes e r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatY an’ s 2006 as y l um appl i cat i on w as t i m eb a rr e d . B . Y an ar gues t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence does nots uppor tthe B I A ’ s deci s i on t o deny her w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al and C A T cl ai m s. 1 

### Yan f ai le d to p re se nt a s ub st anti ve argum ent in sup po rt of the CAT cl ai m

in her o p en in g b rief

. A cco rd in g ly , sh e h as w aiv edany ch allen g e to th e B IA ’s ru lin g w ith r e s pe c t t o he r CAT a ppl i c at i on. Se e Labor e r s ’ Int ’ lUni on v. Fos t e r Whe e l e r Cor p. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d Ci r . 1994) ( “ An i s s ue i s wa i ve d unl e s s aparty r a i s e s i t i n i t s ope ni ng

### 9

bri e f, and for

thos e pur pos e s apa s s i ng r e fe r e nc e t o an i s s ue . . . wi l lnot s uffi c e t o bri ng th at issu e b ef

o re th is co urt.” (citatio no mitted )). T h is leav es u s w itho n ly

h er w ithh o ld in g claim

to co n sid er. A n appl i cantfor w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l m u st s h o w th a t th e re is a “ c lea r p ro b a b ili ty ” – m e a n in g “ th a t itis m or e l i kel yt han not ” – thathe ors he w oul d s uffe rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o hi s orher h o m e c o u n tr y . W o n g v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). Y a n c laim s th a t th e B IA e rre d b yf a ili n g to g iv e a n yw e ig h t to th e c e rtific a te beca us e i tw as unauthent i cat ed. H ow ever , a r evi ew of the B I A ’ s opi ni on m akes cl eart hat t he B I A di d cons i dert hi s document . Fi r s t , i tnot ed thatthe ce r t i fi cat e had notbeen authent i cat ed. I tt hen cont i nued i t s anal y s i s : “[The ce r t i fi cat e] r efe r s t o enfor cementof t h e [ f a mi l yp l a n n i n g ] p o l i c ya n d t h e c i t i z e n s h i p o f th e a p p l i c a n t , b u td o e s n o to v e r c o me t he otherevi dence of r ecor d t hatfi nes , nots t er i l i zat i on, m ayaw ai tthe appl i cant . T he appl i cant ’ s cl ai m i s bas ed onl ya fe aronl y[s i c] of s t er i l i zat i on, notfi nanci al penal t i es . ” JA 3 . T h is be li es Y an ’s asse rt ion that the B IA fa il ed to co n side r th e c erti fica te. R athe r, i t s deci s i on demonstr at es t hati tcons i der ed the ce r t i fi cat e butfound the document u n p ersu asiv e b ec au se itw as u n au then ti ca ted a n d w as c o n tr ad ict ed b yo ther rec o rd e v id e n c e . 

### Yan’ s att e m

pt t o r e ly on c a s e l aw e s t abl i s hi ng that the pr oc e dur e s s e t

forth i n 8

### T h e auth enticatio nreg u latio no f 8 C .F .R . § 2 8 7 .6 p ro v id es, inp ertin ent p art: 2 

### In any

proceeding un der this c hapter , an o ff ic ia l rec ord o r e ntry therein, wh en admis sible for any purpose, shal l be e videnced by an o f f icial p ub licatio nth ereo f

, o r b y a co p y attestedb y

ano f f icer so authori z e d . . . . The att e s t e d c opy , wi th the a ddi t i ona lfor e i gn c e rt i fi c at e s i f any , m

us t be c e rt i fi e d by

an offi c e r

i n the For e i gn Servic e of the Un it ed Stat es , s tati on ed in the forei gncoun tr y wh er e th e reco rdis k ep t. 8 C .F.R. § 28 7.6(b)(1)-( 2). 10 C. F. R. § 287. 6 ar e not

the e xc lus i ve m e ans of a uthe nt i c at i ng r e c or ds i n i mmi gr at i on 2 

### proceeding s i s unavail ing. See Sukwanp utra v. Go nzal es , 434 F.3d62 7, 63 6 (3dCir. 2006) ( hol di ng I Je rr e d by fa i l i ng t o c ons i de r

offi c i a lr e c or d ba s e d on l a c k of authenti cati onun der 8 C.F.R. § 2 87 .6); Liu v . Ashcrof t, 37 2 F .3d 5 29 , 532 -33 (3dCir. 2 0 0 4 ) (sam e). T h ese cases d o n o t sup p o rt Y an ’s arg um ent. T h e B IAd idn o t acco rdless w eig ht to th e certif

icate b ecau se Y anf

ailedto co m

p ly w ithth e sp ecif

ic p ro cedures laid out i n 8 C. F. R. § 287. 6, but

r athe r be c aus e the doc um e nt

ha d not be e n authe nt i c at e d by any m ean s. Fort hes e r eas ons , Y an’ s cl ai m thatthe B I A i m pr oper l yr efus ed t o cons i der t he cert i fi cat e fai l s. Fi nal l y , w e addr es s Y an’ s ar gum entthatthe r ecor d evi dence es t abl i s hed a c l ear pr obabi l i t yt hats he w oul d s uffe rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o C hi na. She r el i es ent i r el yon the c erti fica te an d a su p p o rt ing af fid av itfro m Jo h n S h iel d s A ir d , a “ reti red d em o g rap h er” an d “sp ec ial isto n d em o g rap h ic de v elop m en ts an d p o p u lat ion p o li cyin the P eo p le’s R epubl i c of Chi na. ” J A 678. T he B I A deci ded thatthos e document s di d notoutw ei gh

### 11

the o ther rec o rd e v iden ce , inclu d ing S tat e D ep artm en t r ep o rt s, w h ich f ail ed to su p p o rt Y an’ s cl ai m t hatpeopl e w ho have ha d chi l dr en i n t he U ni t ed St at es ar e more l i kel ythan nott o be s t er i l i zed upon r etur ni ng t o C hi na. B as ed on the r ecor d befor e us , w e ca nnot concl ude thatt he B I A ’ s deci s i on w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See Y u v. A tt’yG e n ., 5 1 3 F .3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in g B IA ’s d e c isio n to c re d it S tate D epart m entr epor t s overA i r d aff i davi tw as w el l - r eas oned and thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed B I A ’ s deci s i on t o denyr el i ef t o coupl e cl ai m i ng theyfac ed for ced s t er i l i zat i on in C h ina b ase d o n b irth o f se co n d ch il d in the U n it ed S tat es). I V. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yYa n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.