FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 20, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10511

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 429- 517 M E I Y U C H E N , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 20, 2007)
B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Be causeshe failed to assert it before the B IA, we lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’ s 1 argument concerningequitable tolling. SeeI NA § 242(d) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)( 1); Sundar v. I NS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003). 2 M e i Y u C h e n , a n a t iv e a n d c itiz e n o f th e P e o p le ’s R e p u b lic o f C h in a , ap p e a ls th e f in a l o r d e ro f

th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a t i o n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” ) d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to
r e ope n he rr e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . T he B I A c onc l ude d tha tC he n’ s m ot i on, w hi c h s he filed o v er tw o ye ar s after th e B IA ’s fin al d ec isio n af firm in g th e im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s
r e m ova l or de r , w a s unt i m e l y . O n appe a l , C he n c ont e nds the B I A e rr e d by de c l i ni ng t o r e ope n he rc a s e be c aus e , dur i ng the i nt e r ve ni ng tw o y e a r s , s he ha d gott e n m a rr i e d, ha d a c hi l d, a nd be c a m e pr e gna ntw i th a s e c ond c hi l d, a l l i n thi s c ountry . A c c or di ng to C h e n , th e b ir th o f

h e rtw o c h i l d r e n h e r e , w h e n c o u p le d w ith C h in a ’s F a m ily Pl a n n i n g La w , s a t i s f

i e d th e “ c h a n g e d c o u n try c i r c u ms t a n c e s ” e x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me l i m i tf orf i l i ng a m ot i on t o r e ope n. A f t e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w , w e de n y t h e p et i t i on f or 1
r e v i e w. A ft e r a rr i vi ng i n the U ni t e d St a t e s on D e c e mbe r 10 , 20 01 , Che n f i l e d a n appl i ca t i on for as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and f or re l i ef un der t h e U ni t ed N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T reatm en to r P u n i sh m en t , b ased o n h er an d h er fam i l y’ s p o l i t i cal an d rel i g i o u s b el i efs. A ttha t t i m e , C he n w a s s i ngl e a nd ha d no c hi l dr e n. T he I J de ni e d C he n’ s appl i c a t i on for rel i ef a nd or de r e d h e rr e move d t o Chi na . O n J un e 29 , 20 04 , the BI A a f f i r m edChen’s motion was entitled “Motion To Reopen/Rec onsider And Motion To Stay From 2 Removal Ba sed On Chang es In The Respondent’s Objective Circumstances.” 3 w i thoutopi ni on the I J ’ s or de r . W e de ni e d C he n’ s pe t i t i on f orr ev i ew . S e e C he n v. U
. S
. A tt ’ y G en. , N o. 04 -136 43 (11t h C i r. S ep. 12 , 20 05 ). O n J ul y 21, 2006, C he n f i l e d a m ot i on t o r e ope n he r r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs a nd t o st ay re m o v al w i th the B IA base d u po n a si gn i fi ca ntchange i n h eri nd i vi du al ci rcu m stance s. S he ar gu ed thatsi nce her pri or re m ov al proceedi ng s, she had gi ven bi r th t o a da ught e ri n 2003, gott e n m a rr i e d i n 2 0 0 5 , a nd be c om e pr e gna ntw i th a
s e c ond c hi l d w ho w a s due i n N ove m be r 2006. C he n a r gue d tha t , be c a us e of t h ese 2
e ve nt s , s he w a s pr i m a f a c i e e l i gi bl e f

ora s y l um on the gr ounds that she w oul d be f or c e d t o i ns e r ta n I U D ort o unde r go s t e r i l i z a t i on unde rC hi na ’ s F a m i l y P l a nni ng L aw i f r eturned t o C hi na, in co n trav ent i on of her w i sh t o h ave three chi l dren. C hen al so arg u ed th at h er m o t i o n w as t i m el y b ecau se i t w as p rem i sed o n th ese n ew ev en t s. T he B IA deni ed C hen’ s m o ti o n to reop en as un t i m el y. T hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew f ol l ow e d. W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to r e o p e n f o ra b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . S e e A n in
v. R e no, 188 F
. 3d 1273, 1276 ( 11th C i r . 1999)
. O urr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o de t e r m i ni ng

“ w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i v e d i scr e t i on a nd w he the rthe
m a tt e rof e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a ry orc apr i c i ous . ” G arci a-M i rv. S m i th, 766 F
. 2d 1 4 7 8 , 1 4 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d )
.4

A n al i en m ay m ov e the B IA t o reopen a pri or re m ov al order bas ed on new evi dence. S ee 8 C
. F
. R
. §§ 10 03
. 2(a) , (c )( 1); see also 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 22 9a(c )( 7)(C )( i i ); IN A § 2 40 (c )( 7)(C )( ii ). T h e al i en m ay fi l e onl y one such m ot i on t o reopen and that mot i on mus t be f

i l e d no l a t e r tha n 90 da y s a f t e r the da t e on w hi ch t he fi nal adm i ni stra t i ve deci si on w as re nd er ed i n the proceedi ng soug htt o b e r eopened. S ee 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2); 8 U
. S
. C
. §§ 12 29 a( c)(6 )( A ), (C )( I) ; IN A §§ 24 0(c) (6)( A ), ( C ) ( I ) . A n e x c e p t i o n to th e f o r e g o in g lim ita tio n e x is ts , h o w e v e r , if th e m o tio n to
re op en i s f

or the pu rpose of r eapp l yi ng for r el i ef “ base d o n chang ed circ u m st ance s
ar i si ng i n the coun try of nat i on al i ty or i n the coun try to w h ich d eport at i on has bee n ordered, i f s uch evi dence i s m at er i al and w as no tavai l abl e a nd coul d n o thave been d is c o v e r e d o rp r e s e n te d a t th e p r e v io u s h e a r in g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C ) ( ii) ; I N A § 2 4 0 ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C ) ( ii)
. A ft erthe bri ef

s w er e f i l ed i n the i nst ant c as e, w e i nt erpret ed the “ changed
c ountry c i r c um s t a nc e s ” e xc e pt i on a nd c onc l ude d tha tthe B I A e rr e d by de ny i ng a
m o t i o n t o r e o p e n b a s e d o n n e w e v i d e n c e th a to f f i c i a l s i n th e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s h o m e t o wn “h a d in te n s if

ie d th e irp e r s e c u tio n o f p a r e n ts o f tw o c h ild r e n .” L i v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 2007 W L 1731109, *1 ( 11th C i r . J un. 18, 2007) ( em p h asi s ad d ed)
. I n L i , the pe t i t i one rs ubm i tt e d the f ol l ow i ng e vi de nc e , i n s uppor tof he rm ot i on t o r e ope n: ( 1) he row n a f

f i da vi t , r e por t i ng r e c e nts e c ond- ha nd a c c ount s of f or c e d s t e r i l i z a t i on a nd5

abort i on i n h ervi l l age i n the previ ou s y ea r; (2) her m other’ s a ff i davi t , re po rt i ng that fa m il y pl anni ng enforce m enthad b ec om e “ m ore s ever e” i n thei r vi l l age, that
s te r iliz a tio n s “w e r e m o r e c o m m o n th a n b e f o r e ,” a n d t h a t t h r e e w o m e n f r o m th e ir vi l l a ge r e c e nt l y ha d be e n f or c i bl y s t e r i l i z e d a f

t e r gi vi ng bi r th t o the i rs e c ond c hi l d; ( 3) the U
. S
. S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt C hi na C ountry R e por t f or 2003, w hi c h w a s a va i l a bl e a tthe pet i t i on er ’ s ori gi nal re m ov al hear i ng , i nd i ca ti ng thatthe on e- chi l d p ol i cy w as m ore
r e la x e d in ru r a l a r e a s b u t th a t p a r e n ts o f m u ltip le c h ild r e n w e r e “u s u a lly p r e s s u r e d to
un dergo s t er i l i za t i on ”; (4) the 20 04 edi t i on of thi s R eport , w hi ch w as no tavai l abl e a t the ori gi nal re m ov al hear i ng , i nd i ca t i ng that pare nt s o f m ul t i pl e chi l dren w er e “ oft en pr e s s ur e d t o unde r go s t e r i l i z a t i on” ; a nd ( 5) the 2005 e di t i on of thi s R e por t , i ndi c a t i ng th a t f o r c e d s te r iliz a tio n a n d a b o r tio n w e r e p r e v a le n t in ru r a l p r o v in c e s . I d
. T he B I A de ni e d L i ’ s m ot i on, r e a s oni ng tha t t h e ane c dot a l e vi de nc e of
s t e r i l i z a t i on i n he r hom e t ow n pr ovi nc e e s t a bl i s he d “ onl y tha t the f a m i l y p l an ni ng po l i ci es ar e e nforced g en er al l y i n [the m ov ant ’ s] ho m et ow n and thatthey w er e
e n f o r c e d s p e c if

ic a lly a g a in s t th e p e r s o n id e n tif ie d [ in th e a n e c d o te s ].” I d . a t * 2 . W e
w er e u n p er su ad ed b y th e B IA ’s re as o n in g in L i, g iv en th e p etit io n er ’s ev id en ce o f “a
r e c e ntc a m pa i gn of

f or c e d s t e r i l i z a t i on i n he rhom e vi l l a ge , ” a nd c onc l ude d tha ts he h a d p r e s e n te d s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f c h a n g e d c ir c u m s ta n c e s to e x c u s e h e ru n tim e ly
m o tio n to r e o p e n . I d . a t 1 0
.Be causewe ha ve conc luded that the B IA did not err in its dec ision on the moti on to re- 3 open, wedo not reach Chen’s a rguments on the merits of her new a sylum claim. See Anin, 188 6 T h e in s ta n t c a s e p r e s e n ts a n e n tir e ly d if f e r e n tc a te g o ry o f

e v id e n c e . H e r e , in cont ra stt o the pet i t i on i n L i , C hen argues that e v id en ce o f a c hang e t o h erpers on al ci rc um st ance s s i nce the B IA ’ s f i nal re m ov al order- - thati s, the i nt erveni ng bi rth of her
s e c o n d c h ild - - w h e n c o u p le d w ith e v i d e n c e th a t th e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

th e F a m ily P l anni ng L aw re m ai ns strong and h as no t been re l axed, es t abl i shed “ changed cou ntry
c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” W e di s a gr e e . A ga i n, the e xc e pt i on t o the 90- da y pe r i od f orf i l i ng a
m ot i on t o reopen app l i es w here the peti ti o n er es t abl i shes “ changed ci rc um st ance s
ar i si ng i n the coun try of nat i on al i ty, ” 8 C .F .R . § 10 03
. 2(c) (3)( i i ), and n otchanged pe r s ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s , s uc h a s the one s r e l i e d on by C hen
. It w as e vi de nc e of
c h a n g e d c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a r is in g in th e p e titio n e r ’s h o m e to w n , th a t w e a d d r e s s e d in L i. L i’s s u b m is s io n s in s u p p o r t o f h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n e s t a b lis h e d a n e s c a la tio n - - in other w ords, a chang e -- i n coun try ci rc um st ance s. C hen p re se nt ed no such evi dence h e r e , in s te a d r e l y i n g o n e v id e n c e th a t o f f ic ia ls c o n tin u e to e n f

o r c e th e o n e - c h ild po l i cy, w ith ou tany a cc om panyi ng ar gu m entthatthe m anner of enforc em enthas
w orse ned. O n thi s re cord, gi ven C hen’ s fa i l ure t o pre se nt evi dence of ch anged
c ountry c i r c um s t a nc e s , a s oppos e d t o c ha nge d pe r s ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s s i nc e the f i l i ng of her appl i ca t i on for as yl um , w e c anno tconcl ud e the B IA ’ s dec i si on w as arbi tra ry
a nd c apr i c i ous , norw a s i ta n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. 3F.3d at 1276 . 7

F i nal l y, C hen h as m ov ed, pu rs uantt o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 23 47 (c ), for l ea ve t o add uce
new ev i de nc e de mons tr a t i ng e l i gi bi l i ty f orr e l i e f be f or e the BI A
. Cong r e s s has proh i bi t ed the appel l at e cou rt s from orderi ng the t aki ng of addi t i on al evi dence und er § 2347( c ) i n r e vi e w s of f i na l or de r s of

r e m ova l
. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1252( a ) ( 1)
. Id
. In a ny event , w e D E N Y C hen’ s m ot i on un der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 34 7(c) because s he has nei ther expl ai ned w hatthe new evi dence i s, no r h as she sho w n thati tw ou l d b e m at er i al t o h er
as ylu m claim an d th at sh e h ad re as o n ab le g ro u n d s fo r faili n g to b rin g itto th e B IA ’s
a tte n tio n b e lo w . S e e id
. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.