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- 3456 XI ANG L I N, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R es pondent O n 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 076- 785- 719 (U . S . Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le D an iel M eisn er) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember16, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , R E N D E L L a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 27, 2011) OPINI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C i r cui tJudge. X i ang Li n, a ci t i zen of

the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of theT h e f a c ts o f re c o rd a re d is c u s s e d in o u r p ri o r d e c is io n , Li n v. A t tor ney G en. , 306 Fed. 1 A p p ’x 7 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A n a lien se e k in g a sy lu m q u a lifie s a s a re f u g e e u n d e r th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity 2 A ct( I N A ) i f he ors he i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o hi s orhercountry“bec aus e of per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof . . . pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . U nderthe I N A , for ced s t er i l i zat i on cons t i tut es per s ecut i on on a c c o u n t o f

p o litic a l o p in io n . Id . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(B ). 2 B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls’ o rd e r d e n y in g h is u n tim e lym o tio n to re o p e n . W e w ill d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I. L i n ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1998 w i thouti ns pect i on and, i n r es pons e t o a not i ce t o appea r , appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e on the gr ounds of r el i gi ous per s ecut i on. A n I m m i gr at i on 1 J udge ( I J ) deni ed Li n’ s appl i cat i on bas ed on an a dver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and or der ed hi m r emoved. L i n appea l ed t o the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) , w hi ch af firm ed the d ec isi o n o f th e IJ. L in d id n o t fi le a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f th e o rde r. L i n i g n o r e d th e o r d e ro f r e mo v a l , r e ma i n e d i n th e c o u n try , ma rr i e d , a n d h a d two c h ild re n w ith h is w if

e , w h o is a lso a C h in e se n a tio n a l. H e su b se q u e n tlyf iled a m o tio n to r eopen a nd a r eques tt o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on i n 2007, cont endi ng pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e evi dence of cha nged countrycondi t i ons conce rni ng bi rth pl anni ng p o li cyin F u

ji an P rov ince ca u sed h im to f ea r fo rce d steri li za ti o n sh o u ld h e re turn . In 2 su p p o rt o f

h is p e tit io n , h e su b m itt e d e v id e n c e p e rta in in g to h is o w n situ a tio n a n d to3

fami l ypl anni ng pr act i ces i n C hi na. L i n once a gai n s oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e. T he B I A deni ed Li n’ s m ot i on and appl i cat i on becaus e theyw er e fi l ed more than n in e ty d a y s f

o llo w in g th e f

in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n , s ee 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) , and b e c a u se L in f

a iled to p ro d u c e p re v io u slyu n a v a ilab le e v id e n c e d e m o n stra tin g a c h a n g e in c o u n tryc o n d itio n s s u f

f ic ie n t to e x c u s e h is la te f ilin g , s ee 8 C . F . R . § § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii ), 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (3 ). In th is f

irst d e n ial, th e B IA f

a iled to d isc u ss in d e tail th e e v id e n c e L in pr ovi ded, and i ns t ead t ook admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of the U . S. St at e D epartm ent ’ s 2007 Pr ofi l e of Chi nes e A s y l um C l ai m s and C ountryC ondi t i ons . Fur ther , the B I A not ed the change i n L i n’ s ci r cumst ance s –hi s m arr i age a nd the bi rth of hi s chi l dr en–di d not cons t i tut e cha nged countrycondi t i ons . L i n t i m el yfi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew . W e gr ant ed the pet i t i on, vaca t ed the B I A ’ s or der , and r emanded the ca s e t o the B I A becaus e by negl ect i ng t o s t at e i tcons i der ed the evi dence L i n pr es ent ed, i tfai l ed t o m eetthe s t andar ds w e art i cul at ed i n Zheng v. A t tor ney G en. , 5 4 9 F .3 d 2 6 0 (3 d . C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Se e L in , 306 Fed. A pp’ x at748. O n rem an d , L in su b m itted a d d it ion al ev iden ce to es tablish c h an g ed co u n try condi t i ons , i ncl udi ng l ocal document s conce rni ng fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es fr om C hang L e ci tyand Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, as w el l as evi dence thats i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed r eturnees had bee nL i n s ubm i tt ed: a 2006 af fi davi tof J i n Fu C hen det ai l i ng a purport edl yfor ced 3 s t er i l i zat i on; a 2007 af

fi davi tof J i ang Zhen C hen det ai l i ng a purport edl yfor ced s t er i l i zat i on; 2006 document s fr om the C hang Le C i tyFam i l yPl anni ng B ur eau conce rni ng C henzhou Li n and Y anyun W u; 2006 Pol i cySt at ementfr om A dm i ni s tr at i ve O ffi ce of N at i onal Popul at i on and Fami l yPl anni ng C om m i tt ee t o the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce; 2003 C hangl e C i tyFam i l yPl anni ng A dm i ni s tr at i ve O pi ni on r egar di ng Z heng Y u H e; 2003 Fuj i an Pr ovi nce D epartm entof Fam i l yPl anni ng A dm i ni s tr at i on A dm i ni s tr at i ve deci s i on r egar di ng Z heng Y u H e; 2004 C hi nes e governm entw ebs i t e conc erni ng tr avel document at i on; 2007 l ett ert o R anda Zagzoug i f I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement and i nves t i gat i on r eportbyJ acki e W . W ong, O ffi cer - i n- C har ge of U . S. C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Servi ces i n G uangzhou, C hi na; 2007 D epartm entof St at e opi ni on l ett erof J ul i ett a V al l s N oy es , D i r ect orof the off i ce of M ul t i l at er al and G l obal A ffi ar s ; i nform at i on on C hi nes e l aw of exi tand entry ; 2007 L i anj i ang C ountySoci al C om pens at i on Fee Schedul e; 2007 A nnual R eportof the C ongr es s i onal - E xecut i ve C om m i s s i on on C hi na; U . S. D epartm entof St at e 2007 C hi na C ountryR eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces ; 1999 Q u e s t i o n a n d A n s w e r s i s s u e d b y th e F a m i l y P l a n n i n g O f f i c e o f C h a n g l e C i ty. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). 4 4 s ubj ect ed t o for ced s t er i l i zat i on. T he B I A agai n deni ed Li n’ s m ot i on t o r eopen a nd 3 r eques tt o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on hol di ng L i n fai l ed t o es t abl i s h change d countrycondi t i ons s uffi ci entt o excus e hi s bel at ed fi l i ngs . L i n once a gai n pet i t i ons for r e v i e w. 4 II. “W e r evi ew a fi nal or derof the B I A deny i ng a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. ” Mahm ood v. G onz al es , 427 F. 3d 248, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “W e w i l l not d istu rb th e B IA ’s d e c isio n s u n les s th e ya re f o u n d to b e a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, orc o n tra ryto l aw . ” Zheng , 5 4 9 F . 3 d at 26 5 (qu o tat ion o m itted). “M ot i ons forr eopeni ng of i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs ar e di s favor ed” a nd d is c re tio n a ry. IN

S v . D o h e rty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992) . A ccor di ngl y , a pet i t i onerE ven i f the movanti s abl e t o s at i s fythe pr ocedur al change d countrycondi t i on 5 re q u ir e m e n ts , h e o r s h e m u s t a ls o e s ta b lis h p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ility f

o r r e lie f. Shar darv. A t tor ney G en. , 503 F. 3d 308, 313 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . B ecaus e the B I A r ej ect ed Li n’ s m ot i on o n h is f a ilu re to d e m o n stra te c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s, it d id n o t ad d re ss w h e th e r L in m ade outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , orr el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e, and w e do notaddr es s the i s s ue her e. L in a ls o c o n te n d s h e is e n title d to f ile a s u c c e s s iv e a p p lic a tio n f o r a s y lu m . Succes s i ve as y l um appl i cat i ons fi l ed out s i de of the ni nety - dayper i od m ayonl ybe gr ant ed if th e p e titio n e r c a n s h o w c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d itio n s . Li u v. A t tor ney G en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 150 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . A ccor di ngl y , ourdi s pos i t i on of the countrycondi t i ons i s s ue contr ol s both the mot i on t o r eopen a nd the s ucce s s i ve appl i cat i on. 5 carr i es a “he avybur den” t o s how the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on i s perm i s s i bl e underthe a p p lic a b le re g u la tio n s , s ee I N S v. A budu , 4 8 5 U .S . 9 4 , 1 1 0 (1 9 8 8 ), an d o u r re v iew is

“ h ig h ly d e f

e re n tia l” to th e B IA , G u o v . A sc h c ro ft , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A m ot i on t o r eopen mustnorm al l ybe fi l ed no l at erthan ni netyday s fol l ow i ng the f in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro c e e d in g th e m o v a n t is a tte m p tin g to re o p e n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ). N o tw ith sta n d in g th e n in e ty -d a ytim e lim it, a p e tit io n e r m a ym o v e to r eopen, butthe pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e cha nged countrycondi t i ons i n the countryof n a tio n a lity , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(7 )(C )(ii), an d th e m o tio n “ sh a ll n o t b e g ra n ted u n les s it a p p e a rs to th e B o a rd th a t ev id e n c e so u g h t to b e o f f e re d is m a ter ial a n d w a s n o t av a ilab le a n d c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e re d o r p re s e n te d a t th e f o rm e r h e a ri n g ,” 8 C .F .R . § 5 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ); s ee al

s o Shar darv. A t tor ney G en. , 503 F. 3d 308, 313 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he B I A has “a dutyt o expl i ci t l ycons i deranycountrycondi t i ons evi dence s ubm i tt ed byanL i n’ s cont ent i ons that“fa ct s pr es ent ed i n m ot i ons t o r eopen s houl d be ‘ acc ept ed as 6 true unl es s i nher ent l yunbel i evabl e, ’ ” Pet ’ r ’ s B r . at11 ( quot i ng Shar dar , 503 F. 3d at 313) , m i s s t at es ourpr ece dent . I n Shar dar , h av ing p rev iou slyd iscu ssed the p eti ti o n er’s b u rd e n to d e m o n stra te c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s, w e m a d e th is o b se rv a tio n in e x p la in in g th e s ta n d a rd f o r d e m o n s tr a tio n o f

p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ility f

o r r e lie f. See Shar dar , 503 F. 3d at313. 6 a p p lic a n t th a t m a te ri a lly b e a rs o n h is c la im .” Zheng , 549 F. 3d at268 ( quot at i on 6 o m itted). W hen w e i ni t i al l yr emanded L i n’ s pet i t i on forB I A r evi ew , w e s t at ed “[ t ] he pr obl em w i th the B I A ’ s deci s i on i s thati tdoes noti ndi cat e thatthe B I A cons i der ed any of the el even ba ckgr ound document s thatL i n s ubm i tt ed w i th hi s appl i cat i on t o r eopen, ” and “i t s deci s i on m ade no r efe r ence t o [thos e] document s . ” L in , 306 Fed. A pp’ x at748. A ccor di ngl y , w e expl ai ned thati f B I A cons i der ed the document s L i n s ubm i tt ed and “ s et forth i n i t s deci s i on thati thad cons i der ed them i ti s qui t e l i kel ythatgi ven the s t andar d of re v ie w . . . w e w o u ld h a v e d e n ie d th e p e titio n in a ll r e s p e c ts .” I d. a t 7 4 8 ; cf

. H uang v. A t tor ney G en. , 6 2 0 F . 3 d 3 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) (gran ti n g a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew w h ere B IA fai l ed t o r evi ew the r ecor d orcons i derevi dence favor abl e t o pet i t i oneri n an as y l um claim ). In re m an d ing the c ase , w e “ em p h asiz[ ed ] w e [ d id] n o t sug g est th at th e B IA rea ch ed the w ron g resu ltas w e o n lyq u esti o n [e d ] i ts m etho d o log y , ” a n d w e the ref o re i ns truct ed the B I A t o “cons i derthe evi dence thatL i n pr es ent ed and . . . i ndi cat e thati thas done s o. ” L in , 3 0 6 F e d . A p p ’x a t 7 4 8 .A l though 8 C . F. R . § 1287. 6, w hi ch r equi r es authent i cat i on of ce rt ai n offi ci al 7 document s , “i s notthe exc l us i ve means of authent i cat i ng r ecor ds , ” L iu v . A sh c ro ft , 372 F .3 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), itd o e s n o t ap p e a r L in m a d e a n yo th e r a ttem p t to a u th e n tica te th e su b m itt e d re c o rd s. N o r d o e s L in c o n ten d h e a ttem p ted , b u t w a s u n a b le to ob t ai n au then t i cat ed v ers i on s of the d ocu m ents . 7 Fol l ow i ng ourgui dance , the B I A l i s t ed and c ons i der ed the evi dence of cha nged countrycondi t i ons thatL i n or i gi nal l ys ubm i tt ed as w el l as the evi dence L i n s ubm i tt ed on re m a n d . F irst, th e B IA n o ted th e re p o rts a b o u t u n re late d in d iv id u a ls w h o p u rp o rte d ly su f f e re d ste riliza tio n s u p o n re tu rn in g to C h in a w ith c h ild re n b o rn a b ro a d d id n o t co n tain or i gi nal s i gnatur es and w er e notpr oper l yauthent i cat ed. N ext , the B I A not ed s om e of the 7 d o c u me n t s wer e i n c o mpl e t e , a n d s o me , s u c h a s th e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e o p i n i o n s a n d Cha n g Le Ci tyd o c u me n t s h a d b e e n r e j e c t e d i n p r i o rp r e c e d e n t i a l d e c i s i o n s . T h e BI A th e n n o t e d we have r ecogni zed St at e depa rtm entr eport s m aycons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence . W ei ghi ng the r ecor d as a w hol e, the B I A concl uded the unauthent i cat ed document s s ubm i tt ed byL i n t o “es t abl i s h thatthos e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o hi m have s uffe r ed the per s ecut i ve means of enf or ci ng the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es exer ci s ed by l ocal offi ci al s i n C hi na, ” w hi ch i thad notpr evi ous l yaddr es s ed i n a pr ece dent i al deci s i on, di d notal t eri t s concl us i on that“the C hi nes e governm entdoes nothave anat i onal pol i cy of r equi r i ng for ced s t er i l i zat i on of a pa r entw ho r eturns w i th a s econd c hi l d born out s i deB I A expr es s ed r es ervat i ons aboutcr edi t i ng L i n’ s evi dence becaus e of hi s pr i or 8 adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, butul t i m at el yr es t ed i t s opi ni on on eval uat i on of the s ubm i tt ed evi dence . T hus w e nee d notaddr es s w hethercons i der at i on of the pr i or credi bil i tyfi nd i ng w as erroneou s. 8 C hi na. ” A ccor di ngl y, the B I A “expl i ci t l ycons i der [ed] [the] countrycondi t i ons

8 evi dence s ubm i tt ed by[Li n] . . . . ” Zheng , 5 4 9 F . 3 d at 26 8 (qu o tat ion o m itted). O urr ece ntopi ni on i n C hen v. A t tor ney G eneral , N o. 09- 3459, - - - F. 3d - - - , 2011 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 5358 ( 3d C i r . M ar . 18, 2011) , i s al s o i ns truct i ve. I n C hen , w e r evi ew ed a fi nal or derof r emoval deny i ng w i thhol di ng of r emoval , as y l um , and r el i ef unde rthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu re . Se e id . at*2- 6. T he pet i t i oner s , a marr i ed coupl e fr om the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, s oughtr el i ef be caus e theyhad tw o U . S. - born chi l dr en, and theycl ai m ed to f e a r f o rc e d s te ri liz a tio n o r e c o n o m ic p e rs e c u tio n s h o u ld th e yre tu rn to C h in a . I d. a t * 2 . I n aff i rm i ng the B I A ’ s deci s i on and r ej ect i ng the pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m s , w e cons i der ed a re c e n t o p in io n o f

th e B IA , M

at t e rof H -L- H - & Z- Y - Z- , 2 5 I. & N . D ec . 2 0 9 (B IA 2 0 1 0 ), addr es s i ng i ndi vi dual s fr om the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w ho al l egedl yfea r ed theyw oul d be f o rc ib ly ste ri liz e d if

th e yre tu rn e d w ith th e irU .S .-b o rn c h ild re n . See Chen , 20 11 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 5358, at*5. W e found M a tter o f H -L -H - & Z-Y -Z- “per s uas i ve[] , ” i d. , in its c o n c lu sio n th a t “‘ p h y sic a l co e rc io n to a c h iev e c o m p lian c e w ith f a m ilyp lan n in g g o a ls is uncomm on and uns anct i oned byC hi na’ s nat i onal l aw s and thatthe over al l pol i cyi s m uch m or e hea vi l yr el i anton i ncent i ves and ec onom i c pena l t i es . ’ ” I d. at*7 ( quot i ng M

at t erof H -L- H - & Z- Y - Z- , 25 I . & N . D ec. at218. ) . W e t ook not e of the B I A ’ s concl us i on that9

“‘ the r es pondenthas nots how n thatherl ocal i tyr epr es ent s a curr entexce pt i on t o the gener al rul es i n w hi ch the C hi nes e G overnm entr el i es on a var i etyof m eas ur es s hortof per s ecut i on t o enfor ce i t s popul at i on contr ol pol i cy . ’ ” I d. W e thi nk the B I A ’ s concl us i on her e, thatthe document s s ubm i tt ed byL i n, w hi ch had notpr evi ous l ybeen c ons i der ed by the B IA i n a p recedenti al decis i on , w ere i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh dev i at i on from C hinese n ati o n al fa m il yp lann ing p o li cyw ith in the F u ji an P rov ince , is si m il ar. In v ie w o f

th e re c o rd a s a w h o le , se e L iu , 555 F. 3d at148, i ncl udi ng num er ous S ta te D e p a rt m e n t r e p o rt s , a n d th e d e f e re n tia l s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w , G uo , 386 F. 3d at562, w e ca nnots aythatB I A ’ s r evi ew of Li n’ s evi dence of cha nged countrycondi t i ons w as d ef ici en t. A cc o rdin g ly , L in h as n o t m et his b u rde n o f d em o n str ati n g ch an g ed co u n try c o n d i t i o n s s u f

f i c i e n tt o s u p p o rth i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n o rs u c c e s s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m. III . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.