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- 4157

___________ XI U YUN L I U, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on for R evi ew of an O r der of t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 099- 927- 474) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Fr eder i c G
. L eeds

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uant t o T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y 22, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , G R E E N A W A Y , J R
. , and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui t J udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober 5, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Xi u Yun L iu p e tit ion s f

or re vie w o f a

de c isi on of the B oa rd of Immi g ratio n App e a ls (B IA). F or the re asons below, we will gr ant the petition for r eview a nd rema nd for f urther pr oc e e din g s.1

L i u w as pregnan t w i t h h er t hir d ch i l d d uri ng her asy l um proceed i ng s. 2 L iu, a native of

China, entere d the United States in J une 2001. In J anuar y 2007, she wa s
c ha rg e d a s r e mov a

ble a s an a lie n w ith out a

va lid e ntr y do c ume nt at th e tim e of

e ntr y . L iu
conce ded re movability

and applied f

or asy lum, withholdi ngof re moval, and re lief under the Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e (C AT ). She argue d th at sh e wo uld be pe rs e c ute d und e r t

he fa mil y planningpolicy

if retur ned to China bec ause she had g iven birth to two children in the United State s. The Immigration J udg e (I J ) denie d relief . The I J conclude d that the evidenc e did not 1
e sta bli shthat an in div idu a l w ithc hil dr e n b or n in the Un ite d St ate s w ou ld b e ste ri lize d o r f or c ibl y aborte d if retur

ned to China. On appe al, the B IA agree d. I t concluded that L iu’s documentation was mostly

g ener al and c umulative of evide nce that had bee n discussed in its publis hed opinions. I t concluded that L iu had not shown that forc ible sterilization, t orture, or other pe rs e c uti on

wo uld be imp os e d a ft e r t

he bir th o f a se c on d o r t

hir d c hil d in

the Un ite d St ate s. L iu filed a timely

petition for re view. We h ave jurisd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2. To e sta bli she lig ibi lity

fo r a sylum , L iu neede d to demonstrate e ither past per secution or a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution on
acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion. See Wang v. G onzales, 405 F.3d 134, 138 (3d Cir. 2005) . To establish elig ibilit y for withholding of r emoval, she ne eded to de monstrate that it was more likely than not that her life
or fr e e do m w ou ld b e thr e ate ne d in Chi na on a c c ount o f t

he fa mil y pla nn ingpo lic y . T arr awa lly v. Ashcrof

t, 338 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A) . To be e ligible f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l un de r t

he Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e , s he ne e de d to de mon str ate that it is more likely

than not that she would be tortur ed if re moved to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2).3

We r e vie w the B IA’ s f

a c tua l de te rm inatio ns un de r t he su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e sta

nd ard . D ia v. Ashcrof

t, 353 F.3d 228, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) ( en banc ). The B IA’s finding s are considere d conclusive unle ss “any

rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B) . We exercise de novo r eview ove r the B IA’s leg al dec isions. Toussaint v. Attorney

Gene ral, 455 F .3d 409, 413 (3d Cir. 2006). L iu tendere d a voluminous recor d in support of her c laim that her fe ar of future pe rs e c uti on

wa s o bje c tiv e ly

re a so na ble . A s th e B IA o bs e rv e d, muc h o f i t ha d b e e n c on sid e re d in prior ca ses involving other simil arly situated Chinese citizens. The re cord, how ever , includes evidenc e per

tinent to the curre nt situation i n China and L iu’s specific circ umstances whic h had not previously

been c onsidered by

the B IA. Withoutfurther explanation by

the B IA of its view of this evidence , we f

ind ourselves una

ble to perf

orm our assig ned re sponsibili ty of re view. L iu s ub mitte d a ff

ida vit s o f a fr ie nd and the wi fe of

a c ou sin to e sta bli shtha t th e fa mil y planningpolicy

which would be a

pplied to her on he r re turn requir es coe rcive sterilization followingthe birth of a se cond child without officia l permission. The frie nd, Yue He , repor ted, “I was for ced to be sterilized at Family Planning Ser

vice Station of ChangL e on January 5, 2 0 0 7 ” a ft er

gi v i n g b i rt ht o h er

s ec o n d d au gh t er . Ap p . at1 4 3 6
. T h e c o u s i n ’s wi fe , Xi ao L i an g,
r e p o rt e d , “ a

b o u to n e m o n tha f

t e r g av e b i rtht o th e s e c o n d

c h i l d , . . . I w a s t ak e nt o C h an gLe Family Planning Ser

vice Station for f

orce d sterilization. The mental and phy sical pain wa s indescriba

ble by languag e.” A

pp. at 1460. In a footnote, the BIA dismissed this evidence f or two re asons: (1) it “doe s not de mon str ate wh e the r p hy sic a l c oe rc ion wa s a pp lie d to a c hie ve the wo me n’ s c omp lia nc e wi th China’s family

planningg oals,” a

nd (2) “ these wome n do not claim to live in Fu Qui Villag e” and it is thus “unclear

whether the re spondent would be subjec ted to simil ar me asure s.” App. at2

A ccor di ng t o t hei r I D car ds , t he fr i end l i ves i n L ong J i n V i l l age, H ang C hen Tow n, C hang Le C i t y , Fu Ji an Pr ovi nce, A pp. at 1432, and t he cous i n’ s w i fe l i ves i n X i a Zhou V ill a g e , H a n g C h e n T o w n , C h a n g L e C ity , F u Jia n P ro v in c e . A p p . at 1 4 6 7 . L iu is or i gi nal l y fr om D ong A n V i l l age, H ang C hen Tow n, C hang Le C i t y , Fu Ji an Pr ovi nce, but t es t i fi ed t hat s he w oul d l i ve w i t h her m ot her

- i n- l aw i n Fu Q ui V i l l age, H o Y u T ow n, C hang Le C i t y i f r et ur ned t o C hi na. A pp. at 140. 4 10 . B oth wo me n a sse rt e d th at th e ir ste ri lizatio ns we re fo rc e d. We b e lie ve that any re a so na ble adjudicator

viewingthis evidence would be compe lled to conclude that the women we re indicatingthat phy sical coe rcion wa s used to achie ve their c ompliance with the ster iliz ations. Moreove r, in the abse nce of further evidenc e and e x planation, we f ail to understand why

the Boa rd would expect L iu to be subjected to a differ ent family

planningreg ime g iven that all three
women ar e fr om ChangL e City which is wher e the ster iliz ations occur red. Citi ngIn re J-H-S-, 2 24 I . & N . Dec . 196, 198 (B IA 2007), the B IA stated that a n applicant must show that the policy in her “ local provinc e, municipality , or other loc ally -def ined ar ea” would lead to a w ell-founde d fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on . H e re , th e B IA c on sid e re d L iu’ s v ill a g e a s th e g e ogra ph ic are a re le va nt t o he r c la im. Ho we ve r, in J- H- S- , th e B IA l oo ke d at pr a c tic e s in the F u Jian Pr ov inc e wh ic h is a much larg er a

rea than a sing le villag e. In support of her

position t hat she re asonably fea red c oerc ed sterilization despite the fac t that her c hildren we re bor n in the United States, L iu tendere d a number of additional docume nts. On e is a n a ff ida vit of L iu’ s mo the r- in- law whic h r e a ds a s f oll ow s: Iam L I N L I NG Ji n, fema le, born on May 4, 1950. Now g iving the tr ue statement re g ardingto the regulations of family planningpolicy

in China. L IU Xiu Yun is my

daug hter-in- law and I

am her mother-in-la

w. I inq uir e d th e c omr a de wh o in c ha rg e in t he fa mil y pla nn ingbure a

u a bo ut my daug hter-in- law L IU Xiu Yun g ave bir th to two children in the US and if the ste ri lizatio n o pe ratio n w ill be pe rf or me d if sh e re tur ns to C hin a . A c c or din gto what they said, eve ry

citizen of People’s Republic of China ha s the obligation for family planning . My

daug hter-in- law will not be an e x ception. Having two children in the U S and returningto China, steriliz ation operation mustbe5

perf ormed a nd social foster

fee will be collecte d. All above a re a ll true. Iasked them to issue a ce rtificate to me. They told me to go to loca l village r committee for the c ertifica

te. Now, this ce rtificate is attache d.

Af fi ant: L I N L ingJin 2007.9.20 App. at 285. The “ce rtificate ” purpor ts to be a statement of

the “Curr ent Fa

mily Regulation of F uQ i V ill a g e fr om t

he Vi lla g e r C omm itt e e . It st ate s: A Chinese couple if g ive birth to a boy , must have IUD inserte d and not allow to have a

second c hild. I f g ive birth to a g irl, four year s later, a llow to have a sec ond child. I t doesn’t matter the second c hild is a boy or a g irl, must acce pt the sterilization operation. For bidden for e arly -birth and ove r-birth. Must obtain the birth per mit for second c hild as regulation states, otherwise, w ill be considere d as violation of the family planningpolicy

and must be punished as the regulation states. All above is the basic cur

rent fa mily planningpolicy

of F uQi Villag e. As long as a villager of FuQi Village, no matter where you are , must obey theregulation. Otherwise, must be punished as the regulation states if return to FuQi Vill age. App. at 293 (e mphasis supplied). A similar statement of L iu’s mother and a ccompa nying “ce rtificate ” we re a lso filed. The only differ ence is that L iu’s mother lives in DongAn Villag e. Simi lar f oll ow -u p in qu ir ie s o f l oc a l a

uth or iti e s b y

L iu’ s mo the r a

nd mot he r- in- law i n De c e mbe r o f 2 00 7 p ro du c e d th e same a dv ic e : “ any Chi ne se c iti zen

mus t f oll owthe Chi ne se family planningpolicy ; steriliz ation must be perf ormed a fter g iving birth to two childre n.” App. at 270. “This is a national policy , ever y citizen shall carr

y out.” App. at 277. This time, howeve r, the a

uthorities declined to provide a wr itten “ce rtificate ” re flec ting their advice
. When the BIA addr essed whe ther L iu had ca rried he r burde n of showingthat her f ear was objec tively

rea sonable, it beg an by

noting that “ while aliens who ha ve had multiple childre n in t his c ountr y may qu a lif y a s a re fu g e e , th is d e te rm inatio n mu st b e ma de on a c a se by c a se basis” and e ach “ individual applicant must establish that the family planningpolicies in her6

‘loca l province, municipa lity , or other loc ally -def ined ar ea . . . w ould give rise to a we ll-founded fea r of pe rsec ution.’” App. at 9. The B oard the n conclude d: The re spondent’s docume ntation is larg ely g ener al in nature and cumulative of e vid e nc e ana ly

zed in t he a fo re me nti on e d o pin ion s. Whil e the re sp on de nt d id pr e se nt s ome inf

or matio n r e g ard ingthe imp le me ntatio n o f C hin a ’s po lic ie s in FuQui Villag e, the town to which she plans to return, this evidenc e does not establish a re asonable chanc e that for cible sterilization, torture, or other perse cutory

measure s will be imposed in FuQui Villag e af ter the birth of

a sec ond or third United States citizen child. See, e .g. , Ex h. 24 (statingthat all village rs who have a sec ond child must be steriliz ed, but fa iling to desc ribe the e nf or c e me nt m e tho ds us e d) ; se e als o Tr. at 60 ( testifying that, if deported, the responde nt and her

family would return to he r mother- in-law’s home in FuQui Vi lla g e ); se e ge ne ra lly

Tr. at 50, 60 ( conce ding that she does not know anyone who was ster iliz ed af

ter re turningto China with United St ates-bor n children)
. Acc ording ly , the re spondent has fa iled to establish her e ligibility for a sylum.” App. at 10; footnote omitted. Whil e the B IA re fer ence s in a footnote the state ments of L iu’s mot he r a nd mot he r- in- law a s e xamp le s o f “ va ri ou s su pp or tin gle tte rs ” pr e se nte d b y

L iu, it neither de scribes the contents there of nor c omments thereon. Id
. “We ac knowledg e that our standa rd of r eview is e x traordina rily defe rential to the B IA,
and no thi ngin t

he [I mmi g ratio n a

nd Natio na lity

Ac t ( I NA )] s pe c if

ic a lly re qu ir e s th e B oa

rd to
e xpla in i ts d e c isi on s. B ut t he ava ila bil ity of jud ic ia l r e vie w ( wh ic h is sp e c if ic a lly pr ov ide d in the I NA ) n e c e ssa

ri ly c onte mpl ate s something

for us to re view.” A

bdulai v. Ashcrof

t, 239 F.3d 5 4 2 , 5 5 5 ( 3 d

Ci r . 2 0 0 1 )
. Se e a ls o H u an gv . A tt ’ y G e n . , N o . 0 9
- 2 4 3 7 , –

F
. 3 d – , 2 0 1 0 WL 34 89 54 3, *1 2 ( 3d

Cir . Se pte mbe r 8 , 2 01 0) (“ Th e B IA mus t pr ov ide su ff ic ie nt a na ly sis to demonstrate that it has truly perf ormed a full review

of the re cord, inc luding the e vidence that may support the alien’ s asylum claim.”). He re, the BIA has not told us why it believes the
e vid e nc e we have re vie we d a bo ve “ do e s n ot e sta

bli sha re a so na ble c ha nc e that f or c ibl e sterilization . . . wil l be imposed in FuQui Villag e af ter the birth of

a sec ond or third United State s c iti zen

c hil d. ” Ap p. at 10 . Wh ile it i s tr ue that L iu c on c e de d th at sh e did no t pe rs on a lly7

know anyone who wa s steriliz ed af ter re turningto China with United St ates born c hildren, we
are reluc tant to conclude that the Boa rd re g arde d this as sufficient a lone to rebut L iu’s evidenc e. Yet we find ourselve s unable to dete rmine fr om the BIA’s opinion what other g round it has for its stated conclusion. B e c a us e the B IA’ s f

a ilure of e xplanatio n ma

ke s it imp os sib le fo r u s to re vie w i ts
ratio na le , w e wi ll gra

nt L iu’ s p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w, va c ate the B oa rd ’s or de r, and

re mand thi s matter for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.