The Honor abl e RudolphT. Randa, Uni t ed S t at es Cour tf or  the Eas t er n Di s t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1698 P I NG Z HE NG, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A 078-746-413
A RGUED O CT OB ER 22, 2012

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 27, 2012

Befo re B AU ER an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd R ANDA, D istrict Judge.  R ANDA, D i s t r i ctJudg e . A fterent er i ng thi s co untry i l l ega lly in2 00 1, P in g Z h en g (“Z h en g” ) w as fo u n d rem ov ab le by an i m m i gr ati on j ud ge ( “IJ ”) i n 2004 . T h e Boar d of2 N o. 12

- 1698 Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls (th e “ B oa rd ”) a ffirm ed , an d th is c ou rtd en i e d Z h en g’s p et itio n for re vie w . Zhe ng v. G o nz a les , 189 F. A p p ’x 564 (7th Cir. 2006). N ow before th e cou rt i s Zh en g’s pet iti on for re v ie w of th e B oard ’s dec i sio n de ny i nghe rmot i o n t o r eo pen . F o rthe r ea so ns tha tf o l l o w, Z he ng ’ s p e t i t i o n i s de ni e d.

I. Zheng w as born on F ebruary15 , 19 84 i n M a W ei Dist ri ct, Fuj i an Pro vi nce, i n the Peopl e’ s Re p ubl i c o f Ch i na. S he ar ri ved i n th e U ni ted S tat es on J uly27, 20 01 thro ugh the U ni ted S tat es Vir gi n I slan ds. The f or m er I m m i gr ati on a nd N atur al i zati on S er vi ce i ssued Zheng a N o ti ce t o Appea r . Af te rt wo c ha ng es o fv enue , Zhe ng eve ntual l y a pp ear ed bef or e a n IJ i n C h ica go. Zheng fi l ed ap p lica tio n s for p olit ica l as ylu m , w ith h old in g of re m ov al, and p ro tect i on under the Conventi on Agai nst Tor ture , cl ai m i ngpe r se cut i o n b ec au se o fhe rpracti ce o fF alun Gon g . On J une 1 , 20 04, the IJ rej ec te d Zhe ng ’ s appl i ca ti o ns be ca us e he rt es ti m o ny was “ r athe ri nc o ns i st en t an d almos t co m pl et ely uns ubs ta nt i at ed. ” Tr an sc r i pt o fthe Or alDe ci si o n o fthe IJ a t 6. The Bo ar d a ff irm ed wi th o ut opi ni on. On peti ti on f or re vi ew , thi s cour t f ou n d th at the IJ ’ s a dv e r s e c r e dib i l i t y fi nd i ngl a c k e d a de qu a t e s up port, but denie d the peti ti on be cause Zh eng f ai l ed to pro ve tha t sh e was pe r se cut ed whi l e i n China , o rtha t sh e es tabl i sh ed a r eas o nabl e po ss ibi l i tyo ffutur e per se cutio n . Zhe ng, 18 9 F
. A pp ’ x at 567- 68. Th e r e a ft e r, Z he ngrema i ne d in the Uni t e d S t a t e s . On Se ptem ber 8, 2010 , Zheng m ar ri ed Dianl e J i ang, w ithN o. 12

- 1698 3

w hom she has tw o chi l dren: J u stin, bo rn Au gust 2, 20 07, and Bryan, bo rn Ap ri l9, 20 11. On Septe m ber8, 20 11, Zhe ngfi l ed a m o ti o n t o r eo p en pr o ce eding s wi ththe Board. Zheng ar gued that her case sho uld be r eo p ened due t o the b i r tho fhe rt wo c hi l dr ena nd inc r ea se d e nf or cem en t ofChina’ s f am i l y pl anni ng pol i cy. The Departm en t o fHomel an d S ec ur i ty op po se d Zhe ng ’ s m o ti o n, ar guing t hat i t was unti m el y a nd bas ed on chang ed p erson al ci rcu m stan ces rath er th a n a cha ng e in coun try condi ti ons. On Febr uary29 , 20 12, the Bo ar d denied Z h e n g ’s m otion bec au se he r eviden ce w as “n ot su ffi cientto establish a ch an ge in circu m stan ces or cou nt ry condi ti ons ‘ ar ising i n the countr y o fnati onal i ty’ so as to c re at e an excepti on t o the t i m e a nd num berl i m i tati on s for fi l i ng a l ate m oti on t o re open to applyf oras yl um . ” Board D eci si on a t 4
. Zheng fi l ed a t i m el y pet i ti on f o rr e v i e w.
II. A m oti on t o re open r em ova lpro ceedi ngs m ust be fi l ed w i thi n 90 days of t h e entr y o fa fi naladm i ni str ati ve ord er of rem oval. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 229a (c)( 7)(C)(i ). Zh en g’s m oti on was filed m or e than si x yea rs afterthe expir ati on of th is t im e fra m e. H ow ev er , th er e is n o t im e lim it if th e m ot ion to reo p en is ba se d o n ch an ge d co u n tr y c on d itions a r is in g i n th e cou nt ry of na tionality orthe cou nt ry to w hi ch rem ova lhas been or dered, i fsuch e vi dence i s m ate ri aland w as n ot ava i l abl e a nd co uld nothave been disc ove re d orpres en ted atthe previ ous he ar i ng. § 1 22 9a (c )(7) (C )(ii). T h e p u rp os e b eh in d lim itin g t h is4 N o. 12

- 1698 excepti on t o changed co un tr y c onditi ons, as o pp ose d to c h an ged per sonalco nd i ti ons, i s t o prom ote fi nal i ty i n the i m m i g r at i o n c o nt ex t. O the r wi se, a n a l i enwho m anage s t o avo i d rem ova lco uld “use thi s interva lo f una utho r i ze d pr es en ce i n the Un it ed S ta te s to manufac tu re a ca se f o r a s y lu m .” C hen g C hen v. G o nz a les , 49 8 F. 3d 758, 76 0 ( 7th C ir. 2 007)
. The S up re m e Cour t has re peatedl y a cknowle dged the i m port ance o ffi nal i ty inim m igr at ion p ro c ee d in gs . SeeI
. N .S . v . D oherty, 50 2 U
. S. 31 4, 32 3 ( 1992 ) ( “[ m ] oti ons f orreopeni ng ofi m m i gr ati on pro ceedi ngs a re disfavo re d” beca use “ as a g ener al m at te r, e ve r y de l aywor k s to the a dvantag e ofthe depo r tabl e al i enwho wi sh es mer ely t o r emai n in the U n ite d Sta te s” ); I
. N
. S. v. Abu du , 48 5 U.S
. 94, 10 7- 08 ( 1988 ) ( re cogni zi ng tha t a ge nero us vi ew to w ar ds m oti ons to re open would “per m i t e nd l ess del ay ofdeport ati on by aliens cr eat i ve and fe rt i l e e nough to co nti nuously p rod uc e new and m aterial facts”). I n thi s l i ght, i t shoul d b e cl ear that Zhe n g’s m ar ri age an d th e b irth of h er tw o c h ild re n, sta n d in g a lon e, is i ns uffi ci en t to war r an t r eo pen i ng . S ucha n a r g um en t has be en “v ett ed i n thi s co urt and rej ec te d.” Ji ang v. Ho lder, 63 9 F.3d 75 1, 75 6 (7th C ir . 2 01 1); s e eal s o Che ng C hen , 49 8 F .3d at76 0; Jo seph v. Ho lder, 57 9 F
. 3d 827, 83 4 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); Lia ng v. Ho lder, 626 F.3d 983 , 988 (7th C ir. 20 10 )
. Ourt as ki s th er efore li m i te d t o a na l y zingthe Board’ s fi nd i ng tha t Zheng di d not pre sent ev i dence of a ch an g e i n c o unt r y c o ndi ti o ns s uffici en t to war r an t re openi ng o fr em ova lpro ceedin gs. Thi s deci si on ca n be u p se t o n ly if th e B oa rd ab u se d its d isc re tio n . Pel i nkov i c v. As hc r of t, 3 6 6 F .3d 53 2, 53 6 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). U n d er th isN o. 12

- 1698 5 sta nd ar d, the c ourtwil lupho ld t he Boar d’s deci si on t o de nyZ he ng ’ s mo t i on t o r e o pe n “ un l e s s i twa s ma de w i thout a r ati onal expla nati on, i nexpli cabl y depar ted fro m es ta b lish ed p olic ies , or res te d on an im p er m iss ible bas is suc h a s invidiou s d iscrim ination aga inst a p arti cul argro up o r ra ce. ” M ans ourv. I
. N
. S. , 23 0 F
. 3d 902, 907 (7th Cir. 2000).

III. Th e f o c us o fZ he ng ’ s mo t i o n i s Ch i na ’ s “ o ne- ch i l d” f am i l y pl anni ng pol i cy. Zheng ar gu es t h at she wil lbe su bj ec t t o for c e d s t er iliza tio n an d se ve re fine s if sh e r etur ns to Chi na , ev en th o ug h he r two ch i l dr enare f or eign-bo rn. A n i m m i gr ant who has a well

- f ounded fear that h e or she w il l be forced to un d ergo involun tary steriliz a t ion, or w il l be su bj ect to p ersecu tion for fai lure t o u nd e r g o s uc h a p r o c e du r e o rf o rr e s i s t a nc e to a coe rci ve popu l ati on pro gr am , m eet s the defi ni ti on o f a “ r e fug e e ” a nd ma y b e e l i g ib l e f o ra s y l um. 8 U. S
. C. § 1101 (a)( 42). I n rej ecting Zheng’ s m oti on t o re open, the Board ci ted to th e St at e D ep ar tm en t ’ s 20 07C ou n tr y P ro file. T h is docum ent pr ovi des that“U.S
. o ffi ci al s in Ch in a ar e no t aw ar e o fthe al l ege d offi ci alpol i cy, atthe nati onalo r pr o vinc i all ev el s, mandat i ngthe s teril i za ti o n o fo ne par tn ero fc o upl es tha t ha ve g i ve n b i r tht o t wo c hi l dr en, at l eas t one ofw hom was born abr oad. ” Burea u ofDem ocra c y, H u m an R igh ts an d L ab or, U .S. D ep ’t o f Sta te , Chin a: Prof i l eof As yl um Cl ai m s an d Coun t ry Cond i t i ons 29 (M ay 2007 ).6 N o. 12

- 1698 Acco r di ngt o the S ta te De par tm en t, c en tr alg o ve r nm ent pol i cy prohibi ts the u se o fphysi calco er ci on to com pel per sons to subm i t t o abor ti on o r ste ri l i zation . Although acknow l edgi ng tha t there were “r epo r te dly” f o r ce d s te r i l i za ti o ns i n F uj i ani n 2 00 6, the St ate Dep ar tm ent obs er ves that Consula te G en er al offi ci al s v i si ti ng F u j i an have f ound that co er ci on thr o ugh publ i c a nd o the rp r e s s ur e h a s b e e n us e d, but the y d id notfi nd any case s o fphysi calfor ce empl o y ed i n c o nne ct i o n wi th ab o r ti o n o rs te r i l i za ti o n. M at t e ro f H- L

- H- & Z- Y- Z-, 25 I. & N . D ec . 209 , 214 (B IA 2010 ) (citing 2007 P rofi le at 24, 26). Zheng tr ied to underm i ne the co ncl usi ons ofthe 2007 Pro fi l e byo ffer i ng the exper t o pinio n ofDr. Fl or a S api o. A c c or d in g to D r. Sa p io, th e 200 7 Pr ofile is “ s e riou sly d efi cient ” in its m eth od ology. (A d m inistrative R e cord ( “ A. R. ” ) 1 5 4 )
. “ Th e l a c ko ft r a ns pa r e nc y i n the metho ds used to r ese ar ch the 2007R ep or t puts to questi on th e r el i abili tyo fi nf o r m at i o n the r ein c o nt aine d. The ex i st en ce o fo m i ss i o ns unde r m i nes its c r edibi l i tya nd usefulne ss. ” Id
. M oreo ver, Dr. S api o ci tes so urces fro m Cong r e s s a nd the U. S
. De pa r t men to fS t a t e wh i ch confi rm that the “pract i ce of f or ced abo rt i on a nd st er i l i zation stil l takes place.” (A
. R
. 174). Con trary to Zh en g’s ar gum ent in herpeti ti on f orr evi ew , the B oard did not r ej ec t this evi den ce o uto fha nd, no rdi d i t que st i o n the ex p er t c re d en tia ls of D r . Sap io. R at h er , th e B oa rd sim p ly f ound that “ Dr. S api o’ s cr i ti que ofthe 2007S tat e Depart

m en t Pr o fi l e o n China d o es no t per su ade us tha t th e P ro file is u n re liab le.” B oa rd D ec isio n at3 . D r. S ap io h er se lfN o. 12

- 1698 7 adm i ts that she “ does not pu rp or t t o provi de concl usi ve an swe r s t o spe ci fi c human ri g ht s i ss ue s, orto addr es s th e claim s raised b y i nd ivi d ua l asylum seekers.” ( A
. R
. 155). S he e ve n c o nc ede s th atthe r e i s “no uni vo ca lc o ns en su s on w h et h er forc ed ab or tio n s a n d st er iliza tio n s a re st ill u se d to im p lem en t th e fam ily p lan n in g po licy . W id ely d iffer en t o p in ion s e x ist
. A ll of th em res t o n th e a va ilabl e e vi de n ce, wh i ch i s nei therco ncl usi ve norco m prehensi ve. ” ( A
. R. 1 68 ). A ccor dingl y, the Board di d not ab use i ts disc re ti on i n adheri ng to the concl usi ons in the 2 007 Pro fi l e. Sta te Dep ar tm ent r epor ts ar e no t “H ol y W ri t, ” Ga l i n a v . I
. N
. S. , 213 F.3d 955 , 959 (7th C ir. 2000 ) , but they ar e s ti ll “ en titl ed to defer ence. ” Zhe ng v. G o nz a les , 40 9 F
. 3d 804, 81 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2005)
. “S tat e Depart

m ent r epor ts o n country condi ti ons . . . ar e hi ghl y pr obative eviden ce an d are usu all y the best sou rce of inform ati on o n cond itio ns i n f or ei gn nat i ons. The r epor ts ar e a ccor ded ‘ speci alweight, ’ bec ause they ar e ba sed on the co l l ecti ve expert i se and ex p er ience ofthe Dep ar tm ent o fS tat e, wh i ch ‘ has di plo m ati c and co nsul arr eprese n ta tiv es th ro u gh ou t t h e w or ld .’ ” Ma t t e ro f H- L

- H-, 25 I. & N
. De c. at 213 (intern al ci tations om itted ). Asi de fr o m the o pi ni o n a nd r epo r t o fDr
. S api o , Zhe ng al so provi ded por ti ons ofthe 2009 and 201 0 An nual Repo rt s o fthe Congre ssi onal

- Ex ecuti ve Com m i ssi on on Chi na ( “C EC C”), a body c re ate d by Congr ess with th e l eg i sl at i ve mandat e to moni torhuman r i g ht s an d the d evelop m en t of law i n C hin a. T he CE C C ’s 2009 R e p ort sta tes that“[ l ] oca lgovernm ents have i n so m e ca ses ste pp ed up eff or ts to i m po se p en al ti es and fines a gainst co upl es who g i ve bi r th to an una utho r i ze d c hi l d, ” fi ndi ng8 N o. 12

- 1698 that l oca lo ffi ci al s in Fuj i an Pro vi nce “i ssued a ci rc ula r ord ering offici als to seek courtaut horization to carry ou t ‘coercive m easu res’ w he n fam il y plan nin g viol ators fail to p ay fine s.” (A .R . 136 -37 ). In Fe b ru ar y 2 00 9, “o fficia ls in A nxi county, Fuj i an Pro vi nce, i ni ti ate d a fi ve- w eek cam pai gn o f‘ concent ra ted se rv i ce a cti vi ti es’ thatdesi gnated the ‘ i m ple m entat i on o fabo rti on r em edi alm easu res’ am ong i ts fi ve ‘prim ary tasks.’ ” (A
. R
. 139). And i n J une 20 09, “ th e W uy i sh i anc o unty g o ve r nm en t i n F uj i anpub l i sh ed vi l l ag e f ami l y p la nni ngr egul at i o ns th ats ti pul at e th e fol l o wi ng : ‘ I n e m er g en cys i tu at i o ns whe n pr e g na nc i e s v i o l a t e f a mi l y p l a nn i ngp o l i c i es, r eport th e m at te rt o the v i l l ag e co m m i tt ee a nd p ro m p tly ca rry ou t re m ed ial m ea su re s (a b or tio n ).’ ” ( A
. R. 14 0)
. S i m i l ar l y, the 201 0 Repor t ind i cate s that “author i ti es acr oss a w i de ra nge o fChines e l oca l i ti es l a u n c h e d p o p u l a t i o n p l a n n i n ge n f o r c e me n tc a mpa i g ns

— oft en d u b b ed ‘sp rin g fa m ily p lan n in g s er vic e a c tiv itie s’

— that em plo yed co er ci ve m eas ures to te rm i nate ‘out of plan’ p regn an cies.” (A
. R
. 120). This e vid ence i s insuffi ci ent t o dem onst ra te a chang e in cou nt ry cond iti ons . Th e “ o ne -child p oli cy” is m ore th anthi r tyy ea r s o l d, s o Zhe ngc anno t pr ev ai lwi tho ut showing that “China’ s e nfo rce m ent o fthe pol i cy had beco me mor e s t r i ng e nti n he rp r o v i nc e s i nc e h e rl ast hear i ng. ” L i a ng, 626 F. 3d at 989. Zheng ci tes r epor ts fro m pri orto herhear i ng wh ich charact er i zed enf or cem en t e f f o r t s in F uj ian P ro vin c e a s “ lax ” o r “u n ev en .” M at t e rof

J

- W

- S-, 24 I
. & N
. Dec . 185, 19 3 ( BIA 2007) (citing Bu reau of D em o c r a c y , H um an Right s and La bor, U .S. D ep ’t o f Sta te , Chin a: Pr of i l eof Asylu m C l ai m s an dN o. 12

- 1698 9 Count ry Cond i t i ons 20 , 25 ( A pr. 14, 19 98) )
. The i ni ti atio n of f am i l y pla nning cam pai gns i n Fuj i an Pro vi nce is not i nconsi ste nt wit h the concept of“uneve n” enf or cem ent. I fa n y t hi n g, th e i d e a o fat a r g e t e d , t e mp o r a r y c a mpai g n su g g es ts une ve n en f o r ce m en t i n th e fi r sti nstan ce. A s the Boa rd has e x p la in ed , a “new report or a ne w l aw i s no t ev i den ce o fc ha ng ed co ndi ti o ns wi th o ut convinci ng ev i dence thatthe p rior ver si on o fthe l aw w as d iffer en t, o r w a s different ly e n f o rced, i n s o m e r el ev an t a nd mat e r i a lway. ” M at t e ro f S

- Y- G-, 24 I
. & N
. Dec. 24 7, 25 7 ( BI A 20 07 ) ( emphas i s adde d)
. Zhe ngf ai l ed to de m o nstr ate thatthe pol i cy is e nfo rce d differ entl y no w than w h en th e p et itio n er w as ord er ed rem ov ed
. Lin v. M uk a sey, 532 F.3d 5 9 6 , 596 (7th C ir. 2008). T he refore, the B oard ri ghtl y c oncl ud ed that Zheng’ s peti ti on was bas ed on a c h an ge in p er so n al c irc u m st a n c e s, n ota c h an ge in countr y c ondit i ons. A si de fro m the i ssue ofchange d countr y c ondit i ons, the Boa rd a lso f ound that Zheng’ s e vi dence w as “not suffi ci ent t o dem onst ra te that [ Zheng] w i l lbe subj ecte d to ste ri l i zati on. ” Boar d D ec isio n at 3. In other w or ds, e v e n a s s u mi n gth a tZ h e n g ’ s e v i d e n c e d e mo n s t r a t e d a change i n countr y c ondit i ons fro m the ti m e o fheri ni ti al he a r i ng, Z he ngf a i l e d t o s ho w a “ r e a s o nab l e l i k e l i ho o d” that she would be el i gibl e foras yl um i fpro ceedi ngs w er e re op en ed
. Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 , 6 7 4 (7th C ir. 2004 )
. “The Boar d is re quir ed to ev al uate w hether the a l l ege d changed ci rcum sta nces ar e ‘ m ate ri al ’ to an appl i ca nt ’ s r eque stf o ra sy l um . Thi s i n tur n inv i te s th e Bo a rd to d e t e r mi ne wh e the rthe s e c ha ng e s p r o v i de th e app l i cant with a wel l

- f ounded fearo fper secuti on.”10 N o. 12

- 1698 M o o sa v . Ho lder, 6 44 F
. 3d 38 0, 3 85 (7 thCi r . 2 01 1)
. The Board di d not abuse its dis cre ti on in ar ri vi ng at th i s co nc l us i o n. The B oard f o und tha t Zhe ngdi d no t sh o w tha t th e doc ume nt s a nd r e g ul a t i o ns s he p r o v i de d fr o m pl aces o th e rth a n Zhe n g ’ s h o me v i l l a g e ( X iB i a n V i l l a g e ) , t o wn (Ting Jian Tow n) an d city ( Fu z h ou City) ap p li ed to her. B oa rd D ec isio n at3. Z h e n g a rg u es th at th is is u n fair bec a us e the S t a t e De pa r t men tP r o fi l e a l s o l a c k s i nfo r mation th at is spec ific to Zh en g’s h om e vil lage. H ow ever, th e “sh ortcom ings of S t a t e D ep artm en t rep orts” are consi dered “ ‘ especi al l y ger m ane’ i n si tuati ons i n w h ich th e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n h a s s h i ft e d t o th e g o ve r nm en t. ” Lin v. Ho lder, 62 0 F
. 3d 807, 81 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) (q u ot i ng Gali na v. I
. N
. S. , 2 13 F
. 3d 95 5, 9 59 ( 7th Cir. 20 10 )
. In Zh en g ’ s ca se , the b ur denne ve r sh i fte d t o the gov er nm ent. I nstea d, i t was Zhe ng ’ s b ur den to est abl i sh ei ther “past perse cuti on” or that h er “subj ectiv e fe ar s o f st er iliza tio n w er e o bj ec tiv ely rea so n ab le.” Id. The r efo r e, i t was not an a bus e o fdi sc r et i o n fo rthe Board t o f al lback on the i nfo rm ati on in the St ate Depar tmentPr o fi l e when den y i ngZhe ng ’ s p etit i o n, a nd the Boa rd pro perl y di scr ed i ted Zheng’ s g ener al i zed ev id en c e t o th e c on tr ar y. C hen v. G o nz a les , 489 F.3 d 86 1, 86 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ) (“ affid av its rela tin g p er so n al e x p er iences orta l es about ste ri l i zati ons i n Fuj i an would not est abl i sh thata perso n i n [ peti ti oner ’ s] posit i on f aces a m ate r ia l risk that th is w ou ld h ap p en to her. T o de term i n e w hetheran a l i en f aces per secuti on in a for ei gn l and, the a gencym ust s epara te nor m alfro m exce p ti onal even ts”).N o. 12

- 1698 11 I V. B ecau se w e find that the B oard ’s den ialof Z he ng ’s m o ti o n t o r eo penwas no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n, the peti ti on f orr evi ew i s D ENI ED .

11- 27- 12