2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-27-2006 

# C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1763

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1206. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1206NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 05- 1763 XI U QI N( J ) CH E N, Pet i t i oner v. ALB ERTO R. GO NZA LES, ATTO RN EY GEN ERA L OF THE U NI TED STATES O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal D eci s i on o f th e 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- 672 I m m i gr at i on J udge: W i l l i am K . St r as s er Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 28, 2006 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , S M IT H , a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 27, 2006) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . X i u Q i n C hen, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, s eeks
r e v i e w o f

th e B o a r d o f

I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ’ o r d e rd e n y i n g h e rm o t i o n t o r e o p e n . WeB e c a u s e th e d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n to re o p e n is a f in a l o rd e r, s ee Se voi an v. 1 A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), w e m a yre v ie w it p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). 2 wi l l d e n yCh e n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w a n d a f

f i r m th e o r d e ro f

th e BI A. 1 C h e n e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s o n Ju n e 2 , 1 9 9 8 . B e c a u se sh e d id n o t h a v e v a lid tr avel document s atthe t i m e of a ppl i cat i on foradmi s s i on, the form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) s erved herw i th a N ot i ce t o A ppearon J une 3, 1998, al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . A ta hea r i ng befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) o n J u l y1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , Ch e n c o n c e d e d i n a d mi s s i b i l i ty , b u tf i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, c laim in g th a t sh e h a d b e e n p e rse c u ted in C h in a b e c a u se , as th e th ird o f f o u r c h ild re n in h e r f a m ily , sh e w a s c o n sid e re d a n “ o v e rb irth .” S h e e x p lain e d th a t if s h e w a s re tu rn e d to C hi na, s he fe ar ed bei ng i m pr i s oned bec aus e s he had notcome t o the U ni t ed St at es l egal l y . T he I J deni ed C hen’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re. O n S ep tem b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , the B IA aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on. C h e n su b se q u e n tlyf

iled a m o tio n to re o p e n w ith th e B IA b a se d o n th e a v a ilab ili ty of new evi dence , s peci fi cal l y , a l ett erfr om the V i l l ager ’ s C om m i t t ee t o herfatherw hi ch i ndi cat ed thatheras y l um appl i cat i on w as an embarr as s m entt o C hi na and thr eat ened he r w i th “s ever e puni s hm ent ” i f s he di d notw i thdr aw i t . T he B oar d deni ed the mot i on, concl udi ng:3

W e have r evi ew ed the documentpr es ent ed, and fi nd i ti nher ent l yunw or thy o f b e lief a s it is e x tre m e lyim p lau sib le th a t h e r v ill a g e c o m m itt e e w o u ld k n o w th a tth e r e s p o n d e n tw a s a n a s y l u m a p p l i c a n ti n th e U n i t e d S t a t e s . We f u rth e r n o te th a t n o e v id e n c e w a s s u b m itt e d th a t es tab lish e s th a t in d iv id u a ls w h o ap p lyfo r asy lum in this co u n tryaf ter th eyd ep art C h ina ill eg all yare per s ecut ed i f theyr eturn. A pp. at2. C hen now appea l s the B I A ’ s deci s i on. T hi s C our tr evi ew s the B I A ’ s deci s i on on a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of d is c re tio n , S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 290 F. 3d 166, 170- 71 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , and w e w i l l not d istu rb a d iscreti o n aryd ec isi o n b ythe B o ard u n less itis “arb itrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr ary t o l aw . ” G u o v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he C ode of Fede r al R egul at i ons pr ovi des that“[a ] m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs s hal l s t at e new fac t s thatw i l l be pr oven ata hea r i ng t o be hel d i f the mot i on i s gr ant ed
a n d s h a ll b e s u p p o rt e d b ya f f id a v its o r o th e r e v id e n tia ry m a te ri a l.” 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) . T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed a tl eas tthr ee gr ounds upon w hi ch the B oar d can de nya mot i on t o r eopen: ( 1) fai l ur e t o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e forthe reli ef so u g h t; (2) f

ail u re to introd u ce p rev iou slyu n av ail ab le, m aterial ev iden ce ; and (3) a det erm i nat i on thateven i f thes e r equi r ement s w er e s at i s fi ed, the movantw oul d notbe
e n title d to th e d is c re tio n a ry re lie f w h ic h h e s o u g h t. I

N S v. A budu , 485 U . S. 94, 104- 05 ( 1988) . I n or dert o es t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e case on a m oti on t o reope n, the p et i t i on er m ust “pr oduce obj ect i ve evi dence s how i ng a ‘ r eas onabl e l i kel i hood’ thathe ca n es t abl i s h [that he i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef on the mer i t s ] . ” Sevoi an , 290 F. 3d at175. In th is c a s e , C h e n s u b m itte d e v id e n c e th a t s h e c la im s w a s p re v io u s ly u n a v a ila b le .4

T h e B o a rd , h o w e v e r, f

o u n d th a t ev id e n c e “ in h e re n tlyu n w o rth yo f b e lief ” b e c a u se it
cons i der ed i tt o be “e xtr emel yi m pl aus i bl e thathervi l l age c om m i t t ee w oul d know that [C hen] w as an as y l um appl i canti n the U ni t ed St at es . ” W e al s o not e that , as the A t t or ney G ener al poi nt s outi n hi s br i ef, C hen’ s cl ai m i s s us pectbeca us e the pr offe r ed l ett erw as nots entt o herfatherunt i l s i x y ear s aft ers he had l eftC hi na. A ddi t i onal l y , herol ders i s t er had l eftC hi na, then l at err eturned, and w as notper s ecut ed. T he B oar d’ s concl us i on r efl ect s a det erm i nat i on thatC hen has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a “r eas onabl e l i kel i hood” that
s h e w i l l s u c c e e d o n th e m e r i t s . W e c a n n o tc o n c l u d e th a tth i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s “ a rb i tr a r y, i rr a t i o n a l , o rc o n tr a r yt o l a w. ” W e wi l l th e r e f o r e a f f i r m.