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. 09- 4739

___________ Z HONG B I AO YAN G, 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

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s ( A gencyN o. A 072- 766- 263) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember8, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M. Z hong B i ao Y ang, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or der ent er ed bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng Y ang’ s m ot i on t o r eopen hi s exclus i on/ deport at i on pr ocee di ngs . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l gr antthe2

peti t i on for r eview and rem and for further proceedings. B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e len g th yh isto ryo f th is c a se , w e m e re ly s um m ar i ze the bac kgr ound r el evantt o ourcons i der at i on of the i s s ues pr es ent ed. I n 1994, Y ang conc eded thathe i s excludabl e fr om the U ni t ed St at es , and he appl i ed foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of exc l us i on. Y ang cl ai m ed, i nt eral i a, thathe w as per s ecut ed i n C hi na bas ed on hi s oppos i t i on t o fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . I n 1996, the B I A aff i rm ed an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng Y ang’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. I n 2001, the B I A gr ant ed Y ang’ s unoppos ed mot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs i n l i ght of pas s age of

the I l l egalI m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996, w hi ch al t er ed the def

i ni t i on of “r efuge e” i n I N A § 101( a) ( 42) t o i ncl ude per s ons su b jec ted to c o e rc iv e f

a m ilyp lan n in g p o licie s. In 2 0 0 3 , Y a n g a n dh is w if e (w h o w a s in dep ort at i on proceed i ng s hers el f) t est i fi ed b efore an IJ i n N ew Y ork. A m on g o ther things, Y a n g c laim e dth a t, as th e f a th e r o f th re e c h ildre n (tw o b o rn in th e U n ited S tate s), h e w ill b e f o r c i b l y s t e r i l i z e du p o n r e tu rn t o C h i n a f o rh a v i n g v i o l a t e dth e o n e - c h i l dp o l i c y. T he IJ denied r el i ef, con cl ud i ng that both Y ang and his w i fe fail ed to est abli sh past o rf u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . T h e B I A a d d r e s s e dth e ap p e a l s o f Y a n g a n dh i s w i f

e s e p a r a t e l y, and i tdi s m i s s ed Y ang’ s appea l i n 2004. I thel d, i nt eral i a, thatY ang had f ai l ed t o pr ove a w el l - founded f

earthathe w i l l be for ci bl ys t er i l i zed. Y ang s oughtr evi ew i n the U ni t ed S tat es C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e S ec o n dC ir cu it , w h ich, i n 2 0 0 5 , v ac ated the B IA ’s d e c isio n in Y a n g ’s c a se u n d e r a “ S tip u latio n a n dO rd e r o f S e ttl e m e n t an dD ism iss a l”Y ang’ s w i fe ha d an I U D for ci bl yi ns ert ed i n 1994, s hort l yaft ergi vi ng bi rth t o the 1 c o u p l e ’ s f

i r s tc h i l d . S h e t e s t i f

i e dth a ts h e e x p e r i e n c e dp h y s i c a l p r o b l e ms wi th th e I UD a n dh a da p r i v a t e d o c t o rr e mo v e i ti n 2 0 0 0 . S h e e n t e r e dth e Un i t e dS t a t e s l a t e rth a ts a me y e a ra n dwa s p l a c e di n d e p o rt a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . As me n t i o n e d , th e c o u p l e th e n h a dtwo chi l dr en i n the U ni t ed St at es , born i n 2001 and 2002. 3 ent er ed betw een the part i es . T he C ourtof A ppeal s r emanded forr econs i der at i on on the so le is su e o f

w h e th e r Y a n g ’s w if

e ’s f o rc e dIU D re su lted in p h y sic a l d isc o m f o rt risin g to the l evelof per s ecut i on, and, i f s o, w hethers uch harm i s a pr ot ect ed gr ound forr el i ef. 1 T he B I A r emanded t o an I Jforfac t - fi ndi ng. A ft erY ang w as gr ant ed a c hange of venue, an I Ji n N ew J er s eyconduct ed a he ar i ng on A pr i l 2, 2007, and deni ed r el i ef. T he I Jhel d, i nt eral i a, that , even i f the w i fe’ s for ced I U D r es ul t ed i n phy s i calpr obl ems, the harm di d notr i s e t o the l evelof per s ecut i on. O n J ul y23, 2008, the B I A aff i rm ed and di s m i s s ed Y ang’ s appea l ( the B I A i s s ued a s epar at e dec i s i on addr es s i ng the w i fe’ s appea l ) . T he B I A not ed thatthe onl ycont es t ed iss u e o n Y a n g ’s a p p e a l w a s w h e th e r h is w if e ’s f o rc e dIU D e n tit led Y a n g to re lief. It h e ld th a t, ev e n if

th e w if e ’s s u f f e rin g d u e to th e f

o rc e dIU D is v iew e da s p e rse c u tio n , Y a n g is n o t e n title dto re lie f

b a s e ds o le ly o n h is w if e ’s p e rs e c u tio n . O n O ct ober16, 2008, Y ang fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen i n w hi ch he c l ai m ed, as he had pr evi ous l y , thathe fe ar s for ced s t er i l i zat i on upon r eturn t o C hi na. Y ang att ache d n u m e ro u s d o c u m e n ts a s e x h ib its to h is m o tio n , an dh e a rg u e dth a t th e d o c u m e n ts c o n stitu te n e w , p re v io u slyu n a v a ilab le e v id e n c e w h ich e sta b lish e s h is p rim a f a c ie el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef f

r om exclus i on.4

O n D ec em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IA d en ied th e m o ti o n to reo p en , h o lding that Y an g ’s cl ai m w as pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed and he fai l ed t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef ba s ed on a claim that h e w il l be f

o rciblysteri li ze d . Y an g p eti ti o n ed this C o u rtfo r rev iew . A fter a m ot i ons panelgr ant ed a s t ayof Y ang’ s r emoval , the governm entfi l ed an unoppos ed m ot i on t o r emand the matt ers o thatthe B I A coul d cl ar i fyw hi ch document s i thad c o n sid e re din d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re o p e n , an dto a d d re ss Y a n g ’s e v id e n c e f u rth e r if appr opr i at e. T hi s C ourtgr ant ed the mot i on t o r emand. O n re m a n d , the B IA iss u e da d e c isio n o n N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , in w h ich it a d d re ss e dY a n g ’s e v id e n c e a n da g a in d e n ied th e m o tio n to re o p e n . T h e B IA n o ted th a t it w oul d onl ycons i derw hetherY ang’ s pr offe r ed evi dence es t abl i s hes thatther e has been a

“ re lev a n t ch a n g e in c irc u m sta n c e s” in C h in a sin c e h is 2 0 0 3 h e a rin g b e f o re th e IJ. It h e ld thatY ang’ s evi dence , t o the ext entthati ti s r el evantand w as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, does noti ndi cat e thatcountrycondi t i ons have c hanged mat er i al l ys uch thatY ang has an o b jec tiv e , w e ll-fo u n d e df

e a r th a t h e w illb e p e rse c u ted u p o n re tu rn to C h in a . Y a n g tim e ly f iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th is C o u rt. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) t o r evi ew the N ovember30, 2009, deci s i on deny i ng Y ang’ s m ot i on t o r eopen. See C ruz v. A tt ’ yG en. , 452 F. 3d 240, 2 4 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e re v iew th e B IA ’s d e c isio n f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n a n dw ill re v e rs e o n ly if

th e B IA is s h o w n to h a v e a c te da rb itr a ri ly, irra tio n a lly, o r c o n tr a ry to la w . F il ja v. G o n za les, 4 4 7 F . 3 d2 4 1 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).5

Y a n g a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre da s a m a tter o f law b ye f

f e c tiv e lytre a tin g h is m o ti o n to reo p en as u n ti m elyfil ed , w h ich c au sed the B IA to ap p lyan inco rrect st an d ard of r evi ew t o the mot i on. Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at11- 14. Y ang not es thathe moved t o r eopen the B I A ’ s J ul y23, 2008, deci s i on, w hi ch he c ont ends w as the “f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve d e c isio n ” in th e c a se . B e c a u se th e m o tio n to re o p e n w a s f iled w ith in n in e tyd a y s o f Ju ly 2 3 , h e a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre din re q u irin g h im to sh o w “ c h a n g e dc irc u m sta n c e s” in C hi na i n or dert o r eopen the ca s e. W e agr ee w i th Y ang thatthe B I A err ed. I n gener al , m ot i ons t o r eopen mustbe fi l ed w i thi n ni netyday s fr om the dat e “the f in a l ad m in istra tiv e d e c isio n w a s re n d e re d .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ). If a m o tio n to reo p en is t im elyfil ed , the s tand ard that g o v ern s it s co n side rati o n p rov ides in relev an t part thati t“s hal l notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappear s t o the B oar d thatevi dence s oughtt o be offe r ed i s m at er i aland w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe form erhear i ng[. ] ” I d. § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) . A ft erexpi r at i on of the ni nety - dayper i od, an al i en can s eek t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs onl yi n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , s uch as w her e the al i en cl ai m s “changed ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the countryof nat i onal i ty. . . , i f 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 rese n ted a t th e p rev iou s h ea ri n g . ” Id . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii ). H er e, w hi l e the B I A tw i ce s t at ed i n i t s deci s i on thatY ang’ s m ot i on t o r eopen w as “t i m el yfi l ed, ” i tneverthel es s as s es s ed Y ang’ s pr offe r ed evi dence underthe changedci r cumst ance s s t andar d thatgoverns a mot i on t o r eopen f i l ed af t erexpi r at i on of theW h ile Y a n g su g g e sts th a t “[ t]h e B IA ’s d e c isio n is n o th in g m o re th a n a n a ttem p t to 2 foi s ta more oner ous bur den of pr oof on Y ang, ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at14, the r ecor d does not s u p p o rtYa n g ’ s c yn i c i s m. I n f a c t , th e BI A’ s c o n f

u s i o n o v e rth e g o v e rn i n g s t a n d a r ds e e ms to h a v e re su lted m a in lyf ro m th e p ro tra c ted h isto ryo f th is c a se . A s th e B IA c o rre c tly obs erved, Y ang’ s m ot i on t o r eopen w as bas ed on the s ame cl ai m , i . e. , fearof for ced s t er i l i zat i on, thathe l i t i gat ed bef or e the I Ji n 2003. T he pr ocee di ngs thatfol l ow ed the 2 0 0 3 h e a rin g w e re lim ited to w h e th e r h is w if e ’s f o rc e dIU D g a v e rise to a c o g n iza b le cl ai m of per s ecut i on. T hus , the B I A pr oper l yvi ew ed Y ang’ s m ot i on as s eeki ng t o r eopen a cl ai m thatw as l i t i gat ed i n 2003, al though i tthen err ed i n fai l i ng t o appl ythe s t andar ds thatgovern a t i m el yfi l ed mot i on t o r eopen s uch as Y ang’ s . Y ang hi m s el f m ayhave ex ac erb ated the c o n fu sion b ysu g g esti n g in h is m o ti o n to reo p en that h is “d o cu m en ts w ere pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e and s how changed c ountr y condi t i ons fr om the t i m e [Y ang] w as or der ed exc l uded i n 1997. ” A . R . at31 ( emphasi s added) . A s expl ai ned, Y ang di d not need t o s how change d condi t i ons t o pr ocee d w i th hi s t i m el yfi l ed mot i on t o r eopen. 6 n in e ty -d a ylim itatio n s p e rio d . In e f f e c t, th e B IA tre a ted Y a n g ’s m o tio n a s a n u n tim e ly f iled re q u e st to re o p e n th e 2 0 0 3 h e a rin g o n h is c laim th a t h e w illb e f o rc ib lyste rilize d in C hi na. B utas both part i es and eve n the B I A s eem t o acknow l edge, the mot i on t o r eopen w as t i m el yfi l ed w i thi n ni netyday s of the Jul y23, 2008, deci s i on – w hi ch w as the “f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on” i n Y ang’ s cas e. See Fi l j a, 447 F. 3d at253 ( obs ervi ng that“[t ] he us ual deadl i ne forfi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen i s 90 day s aft erentryof a f i nal or derof r emoval ”) . C ons equent l y , becaus e Y ang’ s m ot i on t o r eopen w as t i m el y , the B I A err ed as a matt erof l aw i n appl y i ng the changed- ci r cumst ance s s t andar d thatgoverns m ot i ons fi l ed af t erexpi r at i on of the ni nety - dayl i m i t at i ons per i od. 2 A l though w e ar e r el uct antt o r emand thi s m att ery etagai n, w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o do so o n the re co rd b ef

o re u s. T h e B IA ’s de cisi o n to rejec t th e e v iden ce su p p o rt ing Y an g ’s m ot i on t o r eopen w as fi rm l yi nt ertw i ned w i th i t s err oneous appl i cat i on of the changed-7

ci r cumst ance s s t andar d. A s the B I A expl ai ned i t s hol di ng: “the pr offe r ed evi dence does noti ndi cat e thatci r cumst ance s i n C hi na have change d m at er i al l ys i nce the l as thear i ng su ch that [Y an g ] w o u ld h av e a n o b jecti v e[ , ] w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n u p o n return t o C hi na. ” A . R . at6. W her e, as her e, “the pos s i bi l i tyexi s t s thatthe [BIA ] ’ s exer ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on w as t ai nt ed bycons i der at i on of i m pr operori rr el evantfac t or s , r emand t o the [B IA ] i s an ap p rop ri ate rem ed y . ” C h u n g v . IN S , 6 0 2 F . 2 d6 0 8 , 6 1 2 n . 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 9 ). F o r th e se re a so n s, w e w illg ra n t th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew a n dre m a n dth is m a tter to the B I A forfurtherpr ocee di ngs on Y ang’ s m ot i on t o r eopen c ons i s t entw i th thi s O pi ni on.