NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o . 08- 2814

___________ YA N Y UN YE, A/ K/A J I AN FEN Z HANG, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

___________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 75- 809- 257

___________ Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

N ovember17, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , A L D I SE R T and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 7, 2010)

___________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

___________ A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. Y a n Y u n Y e se e k s re v iew o f a n o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a lsT he B I A had author i tyt o r evi ew the I J ’ s deni al of Y e’ s m ot i on t o r eopen pur s uant 1 t o 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( b) ( 3) . T hi s C ourthas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 2 ( “B I A ” or“B oar d”) deny i ng herm ot i on t o r eopen he ri m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . A s s et 1 forth bel ow , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on, vaca t e the B I A ’ s deci s i on bel ow and r emand for furtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. I. Y a n Y u n Y e , 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 , atte m p ted to e n t e rth e Un i t e d S t a t e s o n Ap r i l 1 2 , 1 9 9 8 , a n d wa s p l a c e d i n r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . On J une 3, 1998, s he appl i ed foras y l um and appe ar ed bef or e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ” or “j udge”) . O n M ar ch 31, 1999, the I J or der ed Y e r emoved t o C hi na i n abs ent i a w hen s he f a i l e d t o a p p e a ra ta s c h e d u l e d h e a r i n g . S h e d i d n o ts e e kr e v i e w. N ear l yei ghty ear s l at er , on M ar ch 15, 2007, Y e fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen he r pr ocee di ngs . U nderthe appl i cabl e r egul at i ons , a mot i on t o r eopen “ m us tbe fi l ed no l at er than 90 day s aft erthe dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on w as r ender ed i n the proceed i ng soug ht t o b e reopen ed. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2) . A n ex cepti on exis t s, how ever , form ot i ons t o r eopen “ t o appl yorr eappl yforas y l um orw i thhol di ng of d e p o rta tio n b a se d o n c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity. . . , if s uch evi dence i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or p re s e n te d a t th e p re v io u s h e a ri n g .” Id . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 3 )( ii) ; s e e a ls o 8 U .S .C . § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( i i ) . I nvoki ng thi s exce pt i on, Y e ar gued thatherm ot i on t o r eopen w as notBo th p a rt i e s b r i e f e d th e i s s u e wh e th e rYe ma d e o u ta p r i ma f a c i e c a s e f

o ra s y l u m, 2 butthati s s ue i s notbefor e us . N ei therthe I J northe B I A ul t i m at el yr eac hed thi s i s s ue. (S e e A p p . 2 -3 (B IA d e c isio n ); 4 1 -4 3 (IJ d e c isio n ).) C o n se q u e n tly , w e h a v e n o th in g to rev iew . C f. A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 -54 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 3 tim e -b a rre d b e c a u se c o n d iti o n s h a d c h a n g e d in th e F u jian P ro v in c e o f

C h in a , the p lac e to w hi ch s he w oul d be deport ed. Y e s ubm i tt ed evi dence thatthe Fuj i an Pr ovi nce ha d r ece nt l yi ncr eas ed “the ext entand s ever i tyof per s ecut i ve means empl oy ed t o enfor ce the c o u n try ’s P o p u latio n a n d F a m ilyP lan n in g L a w s.” (A p p . 8 1 .) S h e c o n ten d e d th a t, i f re m o v e d , s h e w a s lik e ly to b e s te ri liz e d . A ft ercons i der i ng Y e’ s evi dence , the I J deni ed the mot i on and rul ed thatY e fa i l ed to s h o w a m a te ri a l c h a n g e in C h in a ’s f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic ie s . (A p p . 4 1 -4 3 .) A l t ernat i vel y , the I J rul ed thatY e’ s m ot i on t o r eopen w as al t ogetherbarr ed bythe fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne bec aus e Y e had “ avoi d[ed] the att ent i on of i m m i gr at i on a u th o r i t i e s s i n c e M a r c h 3 1 , 1 9 9 9 ” wh e n s h e wa s o r d e r e d r e mo v e d . ( Ap p . 4 3 . ) On r e v i e w, the B I A di s m i s s ed Y e’ s appea l , agr eei ng w i th the I J on both gr ounds . T hi s pet i t i on 2 fol l ow ed. II. B ec au se th e B IA issue d a d ec isi o n o n the m erit s, w e re v iew the o rde r of the B IA r atherthan thatof the I J . L i v. A tt ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f

a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , an d w e w ill u p h o ldits deci s i on unl es s i tw as arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal orcontr aryt o l aw . See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290T he pet i t i onerfai l ed t o i ncl ude a s um m aryof herar gum enti n herbr i ef a s 3 requi red byR ule 28(a) (8) of the F ederal R ules of A pp el l at e P rocedu re. T he p et i t i on er al so f a iled to lab e l v o lu m e o n e o f th e A p p e n d ix , as re q u ire d u n d e r L o c a l A p p e llate R u le 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , c o m p l i c a t i n g o u re f f o rt s t o c i t e a n d a c c e s s d o c u m e n t s i n th e A p p e n d i x . We e n c o u r a g e c o u n s e l t o c o mp l ywi th th e s e ru l e s , a s th e yf a c i l i t a t e o u re f

f i c i e n tr e v i e w. 4 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e a p p lya sim il arlyd ef ere n ti al st an d ard to the B IA ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs , w hi ch w e r evi ew fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See i d. III . W e f irst a d d re ss Y e ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e B IA e rre d in h o ld in g th a t h e r m o tio n to r eopen w as al t ogetherbarr ed bythe fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne. U nderthe fugi t i ve 3 di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne, an appe l l at e courtm aydi s m i s s the appe al of a c onvi ct ed fe l on w ho be c omes a fu gi t i ve du r i ng the app e l l a t e pr oc e s s . Se e Smi th v . U ni t e d St a t e s , 94 U . S. 9 7 , 9 7 (1 8 7 6 ). In th e im m ig ra tio n c o n tex t, w e h a v e ap p lied th e d o c trin e to o n e “ w h o is s ubj ectt o an or derof deport at i on butw ho has hi dden hi s w her eabout s fr om i m m i gr at i on a u th o r i t i e s a n d th i s [ a p p e l l a t e ] Co u rt . ” Ar a n a v . I NS , 6 7 3 F . 2 d 7 5 , 7 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 2 ) . As w i th cr i m i nal fugi t i ves , a fugi t i ve al i en “di s ent i t l es hi m s el f fr om cal l i ng upon the r es our ces of thi s C ourt ” by“conc eal [i ng] hi m s el f fr om thi s C ourt , the D i s tr i ctC ourtand the IN S . ” Id . at 77 (qu o tat ion , cit ati o n an d alt era ti o n o m itted). Y e di r ect s a numberof l egal , cons t i tut i onal and pol i cyar gum ent s t o the pr opos i t i on thatthe doctr i ne does notand s houl d notappl yt o her . A ft err evi ew i ng the B I A ’ s deci s i on, how ever , w e ar e nots at i s fi ed thatthe B I A ’ s w r i tt en opi ni on offe r s an expl anat i on s uffi ci entforourr evi ew . I n i t s one- s ent ence appl i cat i on of the fugi t i ve5

di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne t o Y e’ s cas e, the B I A expl ai ned that becaus e [Y e] w as or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a i n 1999, has notchal l enged th e o r d e rf

o rl a c ko f

n o t i c e , a n d h a s e v a d e d r e mo v a l n e a r l y1 0 y e a r s , we fi nd that the Im m i grat i on Judg e app ropri at el yapp l i ed the fug i t i ve d i sent i t l ementdoctr i ne t o [Y e’ s ] cas e and c oncl uded thatr eopeni ng i s not w arr ant ed. (A p p . 3 . ) F rom this, w e a re u n ab le t o asc ertain e v en the f ac tual p red icates o f th e B IA ’s f u g itiv e d is e n title m e n t ru lin g , m u c h le s s re v ie w th e m f o r “ s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” A l though the I J ’ s opi ni on, the r ecor d and the part i es ’ br i efs gi ve us the i m pr es s i on that Y e’s w h ere ab o u ts are n o w k n o w n b yim m igrati o n o ff ici als (e.g., A p p . 6 3 ), the B IA ’s o p i n i o n s u g g e s t s o th e rwi s e ( s e e Ap p . 3 ) . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , th e BI A’ s s t a t e me n tth a tYe “eva ded r emoval near l y10 y ear s ” s ugges t s thatY e r emai ned atl ar ge fr om the dat e of he r r emoval or der( M ar ch 31, 1999) t o the dat e of the B I A ’ s opi ni on ( J une 3, 2008) , and i m pl i es thatY e di d notpr es enther s el f t o offi ci al s w hen s he moved t o r eopen ( M ar ch 15, 2 0 0 7 ). N o thing in the B IA ’s st atem en t of fa cts su g g ests o therw ise. Y et, if th e B IA b e liev e d th a t p e tit io n e r Y e w a s a c tu a llya t larg e , itlik e lyw o u ldh a v e m e n tio n e d th a t f a c t, as nei ther this C ou rtno r “[any ] courthas eve r appl i ed the do ctri ne to an ali en w ho se w her eabout s ar e know n and w ho has notfl ed fr om cus t ody . ” Sun v. M ukas ey , 555 F. 3d 8 0 2 , 8 0 4 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); see A ran a, 67 3 F . 2 d at 77 . W e a re thu s u n ce rt ain o f th e B IA ’s f a c tu a l a s s u mp t i o n s , a n d we c a n c o n d u c tn o me a n i n g f u l f a c tu a l r e v i e w. O urfac tual uncert ai ntyal s o pr event s us fr om r evi ew i ng the l egal s t andar ds6

under l y i ng the B I A ’ s fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ementhol di ng, as the fa ct s bearheavi l yon the l egal anal y s i s . I f Y e’ s w her eabout s have be en unknow n atanyt i m e s i nce s he moved t o r eopen herpr ocee di ngs i n M ar ch of 2007, ourdeci s i on i n A r ana maypr ovi de cl earauthor i tyfor appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne t o Y e’ s cas e. See A r ana, 673 F. 2d at77 ( appl y i ng the fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne t o an al i en w hos e w her eabout s w er e unknow n dur i ng the r evi ew pr oces s ) . O n the otherhand, i f Y e pr es ent ed her s el f t o author i t i es , the B I A ’ s appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne t o Y e’ s cas e t akes a much m or e contr over s i al pos i t i on, as no C ourtof A p p e a ls h a s a p p lied th e d o c trin e to a p e tit io n e r w h o is a v a ilab le to im m ig ra tio n o f f icia ls d u rin g th e re v iew p ro c e ss . S u n , 5 5 5 F .3 d a t 8 0 4 ; A ra n a , 6 7 3 F .2 d a t 7 7 . W e sim p ly cann ot r eview the B IA ’s l egal ruli ng w i tho ut the ad van t age o f these ba si c facts . A s w e w il l exp lai n in P art IV , the B IA ’s alt ern ati v e g rou n d fo r dism issi n g Y e’s appea l i s al s o i ns uffi ci ent . C ons equent l y , w e mustgr antthe pet i t i on, vaca t e and r emand t o the B I A . O n r emand, w e di r ectthe B I A t o expl ai n m or e pr eci s el ythe fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s j us t i fy i ng i t s fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ementanal y s i s . I f the B I A det erm i nes that “furtherfac t fi ndi ng i s neede d, ” i tm ayof cour s e “r emand the pr ocee di ng t o the im m igrati o n jud g e o r, as a p p rop ri ate, t o the S erv ice.” 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (d)(3 )(i v ). In addi t i on, becaus e the B I A i s obl i gat ed t o “ac tual l ycons i derthe evi dence and ar gum ent that a p artyp rese n ts, ” A b d u lai , 2 3 9 F . 3 d at 54 9 , the B IA sh o u ld co n side r Y e’s sw o rn s ta te m e n t th a t s h e n e v e r r e c e iv e d n o tic e o f h e r d e p o rt a tio n h e a ri n g . (A p p . 1 0 2 ¶1 .) A l though notnece s s ar i l ydet erm i nat i ve, w e bel i eve thatevi dence has s om e bea r i ng on7

w hetherY e w as a fugi t i ve w i thi n the meani ng of the doctr i ne. Fi nal l y , i f the fa ct s ar e not as the B I A had as s um ed, the B I A s houl d r econs i deri t s appl i cat i on of the fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne. I n anycas e, the B I A s houl d s etforth an expl anat i on s uffi ci entfor o u rr e v i e w. I V. B ecaus e the B I A deni ed Y e’ s m ot i on t o r eopen on a n al t ernat i ve gr ound – her fai l ure t o est abli sh chan ged con dit i on s i n the Fu j i an P rovi nce o f C hina – w e m ustadd res s Y e’ s obj ect i ons t o thatas pectof the B I A ’ s deci s i on. See Larngarv. H ol der , 562 F. 3d 71, 7 8 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T o th e e x ten t th e B IA in ten d s to p lac e c o n tin u e d re lian c e o n th is decis i on al groun d, the fo l l ow i ng dis cussi on go verns the an al y si s. Y e c o n ten d s th a t h e r e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n t to e sta b lish c h a n g e d c o n d iti o n s in C h ina, an d that w e sh o u ld g ran t her m o ti o n to reo p en . W e a re m o re p ersu ad ed , h o w ev er, b yY e’s a lt ern ati v e d u e p roc ess a rgu m en t. In th is r eg ard , Y e c o n tend s tha t th e B IA i m perm i s s i bl yi gnor ed herevi dence and r el i ed ent i r el yon i t s pr i ordeci s i ons conce rni ng condi t i ons i n the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. W e agr ee. Y e’ s cas e i s on al l four s w i th Z heng v. A tt orneyG ener al , 549 F. 3d 260 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , w hi ch w as deci ded appr oxi m at el yone m o n th af ter Y e su b m itted h er b ri ef (bu t bef o re the G o v ern m en t sub m itted its ow n b ri ef ). A l though nei therpartyhas br oughtZ heng t o ouratt ent i on, thatcas e compel s the concl us i on thatthe B I A ’ s country - condi t i ons anal y s i s w as i ns uffi ci entas a matt erof dueG i ven thatY e’ s couns el , G aryJ . Y erm an, w as al s o the couns el of r ecor d i n the 4 Z heng ca s e, w e ar e perpl exed byY e’ s fai l ur e t o not i fyus of thatcas e i n a l ett ers ubm i tt ed u n d e r R u le 2 8 (j ) o f

th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re . 8 process. 4 I n Z h e n g , we a p p l i e d d u e p r o c e s s p r i n c i p l e s t o v a c a t e th e BI A’ s d e n i a l s o f two p eti ti o n ers’ m o ti o n s to reo p en b ase d o n ch an g ed co u n tryco n d it ion s, w h ere the B IA ’s o p i n i o n “ f

a i l e d t o d i s c u s s mo s to f th e e v i d e n t i a ryr e c o r d . ” I d . a t2 6 8 - 2 6 9 . Al th o u g h we di d noti m pos e a rul e r equi r i ng “the B I A [t o] expr es s l ypar s e orr efut e on the r ecor d eac h i ndi vi dual ar gum entorpi ece of evi dence , ” w e di d aff i rm that [t]he B IA sh o u ld d em o n str ate tha t i t has co n side red [th e p eti ti o n er’s evidence o f cha ng ed co un trycon dit i on s] , even i f on l yt o d i sm i ss i t . In so doi ng, the B I A s houl d pr ovi de us w i th m or e than cur s ory , s um m aryor concl us orys t at ement s , s o thatw e ar e abl e t o di s cern i t s r eas ons for d ec li n ing to af

fo rd re li ef

to a p eti ti o n er. I d . a t2 6 8 ( q u o t i n g Wa n g v . BI A, 4 3 7 F . 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 5 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . M o r e o v e r , we emphasi zed thatthe B I A ’ s dutyt o cons i deran appl i cant ’ s r el evantevi dence m aybe eve n “‘g rea ter . . . in the co n text o f m o ti o n s to reo p en b ase d o n ch an g ed co u n tryco n d it ion s. ’” Id . (q u o tin g G u o v . G o n z a le s , 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 5 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )) . A ppl y i ng thos e pr ece pt s , w e det erm i ned w i th l i tt l e di ffi cul tythatthe B I A had conduct ed an i ns uffi ci entr evi ew of both pet i t i oner s ’ m ot i ons t o r eopen. I n pet i t i oner Z h e n g ’s c a se , “th e B IA d idlittle m o re th a n q u o te p a ss a g e s f ro m its e a rlierd e c isio n in J - W - S- [, 24 I & N D ec. 185 ( B I A 2007) , ] w i thouti dent i fy i ng – l etal one di s cus s i ng – the var i ous s t at ement s cont ai ned i n the r ecor d. ” Zheng, 549 F. 3d at268- 269. I n pet i t i oner9

C h e n ’ s c a s e , th e B I A ’ s r e v i e w w a s e v e n m o r e c u r s o ry: [T ]he B IA fa il ed to ref

er to m o st of

the d o cu m en ts th at C h en su b m itted in su p p o rt o f h is m o tio n , w h e th e r e x p licitlyo r b yc itatio n to a n e a rlierd e c isio n . . . . In f a c t, th e B IA ’s d isc u ss io n . . . am o u n ts to a se rie s o f c o n c lu so rysta tem e n ts, a n d f a ils to offe reven acur s oryr evi ew of the r ecor d. Forexampl e, the B I A s t at ed that “[Chen] has notpr ovi ded s uffi ci entevi dence thatanys anct i ons [he] m ay e x p e ri e n c e if

h e re tu rn s to C h in a w o u ld ri s e to th e le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n .” Id. at 27 0 -27 1 (fo o tno te om itted). A lth o u g h w e a ck n o w ledg ed that the B IA ’s su m m ary con cl usi on s m ayhav e been corr ect , w e held that the B IA ’s revi ew w as i nsuff i ci ent as a m att erof due pr oces s . See i d. at271- 272. G i ven the B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o di s cus s ei ther p e tit io n e r’s e v id e n tiary rec o rd , w e v a c a ted a n d re m a n d e d th e B IA ’s d e n ials o f b o th p e titio n e rs ’ m o tio n s to re o p e n . Id . a t 2 7 1 . Z h en g co m p els th e sa m e re su lth ere . In a ff irm ing the IJ’s d eterm ination that Y e’s m ot i on t o r eopen w as unt i m el y , the B I A s t at ed: A ft err evi ew i ng the bac kgr ound m at er i al cons i der ed bythe I m m i gr at i on J u d g e , w e a re n o t c o n v in c e d th a t th e e v id e n c e s h o w s a m a te ri a l c h a n g e . . . . G i ven the r ece ntext ens i ve ana l y s i s undert aken bythe B oar d of the s i tuat i on in C h in a , an d in p a rticu lar[ Y e ’s] F u jian P ro v in c e , the e v id e n c e su b m itt e d is in su f f icie n t to m e e t th e h e a v yb u rd e n o f p ro o f re q u ire d to g ra n t an u n tim e ly m o t i o n t o r e o p e n [ h e r ] r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . S e e Ma tt e ro f S - Y- G- , 2 4 I &N D ec . 2 4 7 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ); M att er o f J-H -S -, 2 4 I& N D ec . 1 9 6 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ); M att er o f J-W -S -, 2 4 I& N D ec . 1 8 5 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ). (A p p . 2 -3.) T h e b alan ce o f th e B IA ’s discu ssion ex p lai n ed it s h o lding s in S -Y -G -, J-H -S -, a n d J-W -S -, an d re f

e rre d o n lyg e n e ra llyto th e in su f f icie n c yo f

“ th e a d d iti o n a l d o c u m e n ts pr ovi ded bythe r es pondent . ” ( A pp. 3. ) A s i n Z heng, the B I A ’ s r evi ew “amount [ed] t o a s e ri e s o f c o n c lu s o ry st a te m e n ts , a n d f a il[ e d ] t o o f

f e r e v e n a c u rs o ry re v ie w o f th e re c o rd .”O urr evi ew s at i s fi es us thatY e s ubm i tt ed manydocument s thatw er e notati s s ue 5 in th e p a st d e c isio n s u p o n w h ich th e B IA ’s o p in io n re lied . T h is e v id e n c e in c lu d e s, b u t is notl i m i t ed t o, Y e’ s aff

i davi t , the Pol i cySt at ementfr om the A dm i ni s tr at i ve O ffi ce of the N ati o n al P o p u lat ion an d F am il yP lann ing C o m m ittee, th e C h an g le C ityQ & A , W u ’s con gress i on al t est i m on y , and tw o n ew s art i cl es. 10 Z heng, 549 F. 3d at271. C o n tra ryto th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o n ten tio n , the B IA w a s n o t en tit led to su b stitu te its ow n pr ece dent s forthe i ndi vi dual i zed e vi dent i aryr evi ew t o w hi ch pet i t i onerY e w as ent i t l ed. R ej ect i ng thats ame cont ent i on i n Z heng, w e rul ed that w her e the evi dent i aryr ecor d cont ai ns document s thatw er e notati s s ue i n an e a rlierd e c isio n , m e re re f e re n c e to th a t ea rlierd e c isio n is in su f f icie n t to w arr antadopt i ng i t s concl us i ons . R ather , the B I A m us tas s es s anyevi dence th a t b e a rs o n th e q u e s tio n s o f f a c t w h ic h it m u s t d e c id e . I d. at271 n. 7 ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . A l though the B oar d w as ent i t l ed t o cons i deri t s “r ece nt ext ens i ve ana l y s i s . . . of the s i tuat i on i n C hi na” ( A pp. 2) , i tcoul d noti gnor e the port i ons of Y e’ s evi dence thatw er e notaddr es s ed i n thos e ca s es . N orcoul d i tr el yon i t s pr i or 5 deci s i ons w i thouts at i s fy i ng i t s el f thatY e’ s evi dence w as i n fac tthe s ame as , or su b stan ti all ysim il ar to, th e e v iden ce rejected in tho se c ase s. A s in Z h en g , the B IA ’s deci s i on pr ovi des no i nform at i on r egar di ng i t s r at i onal e fordeemi ng Y e’ s evi dence irre le v a n t o r u n p e rs u a s iv e . C o n se q u e n tly , Z h e n g f

o re c lo se s th e B IA f

ro m re stin g its d ism iss a l o n its det erm i nat i on thatY e di d notm eetherbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng change d countrycondi t i ons in C h in a , as th a t d e ter m in a tio n w a s in c o n sis ten t w ith d u e p ro c e ss . If th e B IA in ten d s to11

place conti nu ed rel i ance o n thi s al t ernat i ve d eci si on al groun d, on rem and i tm ust reconsi der Y e’s argum ents and “m ake a m ore com plet e analy si s of the ev i den ce [she h as] s ubm i tt ed. ” Zheng, 549 F. 3d at272. V. W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons r ai s ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno furtherdi s cus s i on i s nece s s ary . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antY e’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew , vaca t e the B I A ’ s deci s i on bel ow and r emand forfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent w ith th is o p in io n .