2011 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 2-8-2011 

# Y uyan Zhou 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 . 10-1081

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_2011

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 2011 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Y uyan Zhou v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1836. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/18361 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. 10- 1081

___________ YUYAN Z HOU; Z HANGY I P AN, P eti ti o n ers v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 ( A gencyN os . A 99 687 192 and A 99 687 193) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e F reder i ck L eeds

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

J anuary26, 2011 B efor e: C hi ef J udge M C K E E , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February8, 2011)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i oner s Y uy an Zhou and herhus band Zhangy i Pan, nat i ves and ci t i zens of C hi na, pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”)2

d ism iss in g th e ir a p p e a l f ro m a n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e c isio n d e n y in g th e ir a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o rr e l i e f f r o m r e mo v a l . 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. Z h o u an d P an ca m e to th e U n it ed S tat es in 2 0 0 1 . In 2 0 0 6 , n o ti ce s to a p p ea r w ere i s s ued cha r gi ng t hatt heyw er e s ubj ectt o r emoval fr om the U ni t ed St at es beca us e they w er e pr es entw i t houthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed. T hr ough couns el , Z hou and Pan conce ded thatt heyar e r emovabl e as char ged. Z hou appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) w i t h Pan as her der i vat i ve bene fi ci ary . Z hou, w ho i s fr om Z hej i ang Pr ovi nce, C hi na, cl ai m ed that , bas ed on t he bi r t h of hert w o s ons i n t he U ni t ed St at es , s he w i l l be for ci bl ys t er i l i zed a nd fi ned if re m o v e d . Z h o u tes tifie d th a t if s h e a n d P a n a re re m o v e d , the yw o u ld tak e th e ir c h ild re n w ith th e m to C h in a a n d re g iste r th e m in a h o u se h o ld re g istra tio n so th a t th e yw o u ld b e a b le to a tten d sc h o o l. Z h o u sta ted th a t P a n h a s a d a u g h ter in C h in a f ro m a n o th e r re latio n sh ip w h o also w o u ld li v e w ith them . Z h o u b eli ev ed that sh e w o u ld b e f ined fo r ha v ing m o re th a n th e p e rm iss ib le n u m b e r o f c h ild re n . S h e e x p lain e d th a t u n d e r th e a p p lica b le f a m ily planni ng po l i cyshe w as not al l ow ed to hav e a secon d ch i l d b ecause h er fi rs tchil d w as a b o y . Z hou fur t hert es t i fi ed thatt he fi nes i m pos ed forexce s s i ve bi r t hs varybas ed on a fami l y ’ s w eal t h and thatpeopl e w ho r eturned fr om abr oad r ece i ved gr eat erfi nes . Z hou s ta te d th a t s h e a n d P a n w o u ld b e f in e d a p p ro x im a te ly $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . A lth o u g h Z h o u ’s f a th e r, a3

farm er , pai d appr oxi m at el y$30, 000 t o have Zhou smuggl ed i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es , Z hou s t at ed he w oul d notpaya fi ne i m pos ed forexce s s i ve bi r t hs beca us e s he w as now m arr i ed w ith h e r o w n f

a m ily . Z h o u h a s re p a id h e r f a th e r m o re th a n $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 o f th e m o n e yh e p a id to h a v e h e r s m u g g le d in to th e c o u n tr y . Z h o u w a s n o t w o rk in g a t th e tim e o f th e h e a ri n g . Pan w as s uppor t i ng t he fa m i l ybyw or ki ng i n a r es t aur antw hi l e Zhou w as t aki ng car e of t heirsons. Z h o u a lso tes tifie d th a t sh e w ill b e f o rc ib lyste rilize d if

sh e re tu rn s to C h in a d u e to hervi ol at i on of fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . Z hou expl ai ned that , w hi l e s he w as pr egnant w i t h hers econd c hi l d, s he coul d nott ake c ar e of he rfi r s tchi l d and s he s enthi m t o C hi na t o l i ve w i t h fami l y . Z hou s t at ed thathers on’ s tr avel document s i dent i fyhi m as C hi nes e. Z ho u ap parent l ybeli eves t hat, as a r esul t , she w i l l be tar geted for st eri l i zat i on . Z ho u als o s t at ed thata fr i end of he r s i n C hi na w as s t er i l i zed a ft ers he had a s econd c hi l d. Z hou, how ever , does notknow any one w ho has r eturned t o C hi na w i t h U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c h ild re n w h o h a s b e e n ste rilize d . P a n a lso tes tifie d b rie f lya n d sta ted th a t h e a n d h is fami l ycoul d l i ve w i t h hi s par ent s i f he a nd Z hou ar e r emoved t o C hi na. Pan fur t her s ta te d th a t h e p a id a s m u g g le r a p p ro x im a te ly $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 to h e lp h im e n te r t h e U n ite d S ta te s . T h e IJ d e ter m in e d th a t Z h o u a n d P a n a re n o t elig ib le f o r re lief f ro m re m o v a l, emphasi zi ng t hatt her e w as no evi dence thatany one w ho r eturned t o C hi na w i t h U ni t ed S tat es c it izen ch il d ren h as b ee n steri li ze d . O n ap p ea l, the B IA af firm ed the IJ’s4

det erm i nat i on t hatZ hou had notes t abl i s hed el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um . T he B I A expl ai ned t hata C hi nes e ci t i zen w ho has gi ven bi r t h t o U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c hi l dr en mayqual i fyas a re fu g ee if th e a li en sh o w s tha t th e b irths v iolated f am il yp lann ing p o li cies in th e a li en ’s l ocal pr ovi nce a nd t hatcurr entl ocal fami l ypl anni ng enfor cementeff or t s gi ve r i s e t o a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on. T he B I A r ej ect ed Zhou’s ar gum entthather b a c k g ro u n d e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h e d p e rv a s iv e f o rc e d s te ri liz a tio n s in Z h e jia n g P ro v in c e . T he B I A not ed thats om e of the gene r al evi dence Z hou s ubm i t t ed w as the s ame as or cumul at i ve of doc um ent s anal y zed i n r ece ntB I A deci s i ons r ej ect i ng s i m i l arcl ai m s , that s om e of the s ubm i t t ed mat er i al s r el at e t o pr ovi nces ot herthan Zhej i ang Pr ovi nce, and that t he congr es s i onal t es t i m oni es and i nves t i gat i ve art i cl es s ubm i t t ed do notaddr es s r ece nt condi t i ons i n Z hej i ang Pr ovi nce. T he B I A not ed thata M ay2007 new s ar t i cl e r epor t ed t hatvi ol at or s of the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cyi n Z hej i ang Pr ovi nce f ace fi nes , notfor ced s t er i l i zat i on. A lth o u g h th e B IA re c o g n ize d th a t f in e s a n d in c e n tiv e s a re c o m m o n lyu se d to a c h iev e c o m p lian c e w ith f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licie s, th e B IA f o u n d in su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to as s es s a cl ai m of ec onom i c per s ecut i on i n Z hou’ s cas e. T he B I A not ed thatZ hou had t es t i fi ed thats he w oul d be fi ned the equi val entof $10, 000, butthats he di d notpr ovi de s uppor t i ng evi dence and thata fi ne s chedul e s he had s ubm i t t ed di d noti ndi cat e the appl i cabl e l ocal i t y . T he B I A al s o not ed thata new s ar t i cl e and vi l l age c om m i t t ee s t at ementfr om Z hej i ang Pr ovi nce s t at es thata fi ne s hal l be fourt i m es the l ocal aver age5

annual i ncome, butfound thatZ hou di d nots ubm i tevi dence of the ave r age a nnual i ncome forherar ea. T he B I A al s o found the coupl e’ s t es t i m onyaboutthei ri ncome and fi nanci al ci r cumst ance s i ns uffi ci entt o s how thei ri nabi l i t yt o paya fi ne. T he B I A not ed th a t Z h o u a n d P a n , w ith th e h e lp o f th e ir f a m ili e s, w e re a b le to p a yo f f d e b ts to th e ir s m uggl er s , w hi ch w er e gr eat ert han $10, 000. T he B I A fur t herfound Zhou’s i ndi vi dual i zed e vi dence i ns uffi ci entt o s how that s he has r eas on t o fea rper s ecut i on. Z hou as s ert ed i n heraff i davi tthathers i s t er - i n- l aw w as s t er i l i zed i n 1985, t hathers i s t erw as for ced t o have a n abor t i on i n 1991, and thather par ent s had t ol d hert hatt w o w om en fr om hervi l l age w er e for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i n 2005 and 2006. T he B I A s t at ed thatt he i nci dent s i nvol vi ng hers i s t erand s i s t er - i n- l aw w er e t oo l ong ago t o es t abl i s h how pol i ci es ar e enf or ced t odayand thatthe otherw om en di d not pr ovi de s t at ement s . A fr i end of Zhou’ s di d s ubm i tan af fi davi ts t at i ng thats he w as s t er i l i zed i n 2007, butt he B I A found thatthe af fi davi tl acke d s uffi ci entdet ai l abouther e x p e ri e n c e . Z hou’ s hom e vi l l age c om m i t t ee a l s o pr ovi ded a s t at ementthatZ hou w oul d be r equi r ed t o under go s t er i l i zat i on. T he B I A not ed thatthe s t at ementi s a phot ocopyand sta ted th a t Z h o u h a d n o t sh o w n th a t th e c o m m itt e e h a d th e a u th o rityto m a k e f a m ily p lan n in g d e c isio n s. Z h o u a lso p ro v id e d e v id e n c e th a t an in d iv id u a l w a s f o rc ib ly s t er i l i zed a ft err etur ni ng t o C hi na w i t h chi l dr en born i n J apan. T he B I A not ed, among6

othert hings, t hat the indi vidual l i ved i n F uji an P rovi nce, notZ heji ang P rovi nce. Th us, th e B IA g a v e th e s e d o c u m e n ts littl e w e ig h t. I n addi t i on t o concl udi ng t hatZ hou di d notm eetherbur den of pr oof foras y l um a n d w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, th e B IA a g re e d w ith th e IJ th a t Z h o u d id n o t sh o w th a t sh e is eli g ible fo r reli ef

u n d er the C A T . T h e B IA stat ed Z h o u h ad n o t sho w n that itis m o re l i kel yt han nott hats he w i l l be t or tur ed upon r eturn t o C hi na bas ed on the bi r t hs of her t w o chi l dr en and Pan’ s daught er . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . B eca us e the B I A i s s ued i t s ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew t he dec i s i on of the B I A , notthe I J . H uang v. A t t ’ yG en. , 620 F. 3d 372, 379 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs underthe s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e sta n d a rd o f

re v iew , u n d e r w h ich w e w ill re v e rse b a se d o n f a c tu a l er ro r “ o n lyif anyr eas onabl e fa ct - fi nderw oul d be ‘ compel l ed t o concl ude otherw i s e. ’ ” I d. ( ci t i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )). W e re v iew the B IA ’s l eg al co n clus ion s d e n o v o an d ac co rd defe r ence as r equi r ed underC hevr on v. N atur al R es our ces D efe ns e C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837 ( 1984) . I d. Z hou and Pan ar gue thatt he B I A err ed byr evi ew i ng thei revi dence de novo. T hey cont end thatt he B I A i m pr oper l ydi s count ed the vi l l age c om m i t t ee not i ce f orr eas ons ot hert han thos e gi ven byt he I J and err ed i n as s es s i ng the evi dence of for ced st eri l i zat i on s. W e recent l yheld that the B IA ’s revi ew of w hetherthe fa ct s of a case s u p p o r ta w e l l - f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n i s d e n o v o . H u a n g , 6 2 0 F . 3 d a t3 8 6 - 8 7 . We7

ex p lai n ed that, w h il e d ispu ted f ac tual q u esti o n s are rev iew ed fo r clear e rror, o n ce the IJ re so lv e s f

a c tu a l d isp u tes , as se ss in g h o w a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld re sp o n d to th o se f a c ts i s a ques t i on of l aw s ubj ectt o de novo r evi ew . I d. at387. H er e, cons i s t entw i t h H uang, t he B I A s t at ed thati tappl i ed de novo r evi ew i n as s es s i ng the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatZ hou had notes t abl i s hed el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um beca us e herfea rof futur e per s ecut i on w as not obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. A l t hough Z hou faul t s the B I A forpr ovi di ng r eas ons bey ond t hos e pr ovi ded byt he I J , t he B I A di d notdet erm i ne a di s put ed fa ctual ques t i on de novo butfur t heraddr es s ed the l egal ques t i on of w hetherZ hou’ s fea rw as w el l - founded ba s ed o n th e e v id e n c e . S e e id . Z hou and Pan al s o ar gue thatthe B I A err ed i n gi vi ng l i t t l e w ei ghtt o evi dence s h o wi n g t h a tf

o r c e d a b o r t i o n s a n d s t e r i l i z a t i o n s h a v e o c c u r r e d i n th e i rh o me t o wn . As not ed above , Z hou at t es t ed i n heraff i davi tthatherpar ent s had t ol d herthattw o w om en fr om hert ow n w er e for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i n 2005 and 2006. I n addi t i on, Z hou’ s fr i end s ubm i t t ed a l et t ers t at i ng t hats he w as for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i n 2007. T he B I A r ecogni zed t hi s evi dence butnot ed thatZ hou di d nots ubm i ts t at ement s fr om the tw o w om en m ent i oned i n heraff

i davi tand s t at ed thatherfr i end’ s l et t erl acke d det ai l . Z hou has not s how n t hata r eas onabl e per s on w oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude fr om thi s evi dence t hat s he has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on. Z hou di d notpr ovi de det ai l ed i nform at i on aboutt he w om en ment i oned i n heraff i davi tnordoes s he expl ai n how the i nci dent i n v o l v i n g h e rf

r i e n d s u p p o r t s h e rc l a i m.1. A l t hough Z hou and Pan ar gue thatone courtof appe al s has r emanded a 1 cas e t o t he B I A t o cons i derevi dence aboutthes e i ndi vi dual s , i n t hatcas e, unl i ke her e, t he BI A ha d n otdi s c us s e d the e vi de nc e i n i t s de c i s i on . Se e Zhe ng v. H ol de r , 36 1 F. A p p ’x 1 8 4 , 1 8 7 -8 8 (2 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ) (u n p u b lish e d d e c isio n ). M o re o v e r, th e a lien in 8 Z hou and Pan furt hercont end thatthe B I A err ed i n di s count i ng the vi l l age comm i t t ee s t at ementbeca us e i ti s a phot ocopyand bec aus e the evi dence does notr efl ect th a t a v ill a g e c o m m itt e e h a s th e a u th o rityto m a k e f a m ilyp lan n in g d e c isio n s. T h e re is s om e gene r al evi dence i n t he r ecor d pr ovi di ng thatenfor cementof popul at i on contr ol p o licie s is c a rrie d o u t b yv ill a g e a u th o rities . S e e A .R . at 2 1 2 . H o w e v e r, ev e n if th is evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s how how enfor cementi n Z hou’ s vi l l age i s carr i ed out , the s t a t e me n tr e f

l e c t s t h a tt h e v i l l a g e c o mm i t t e e i n f o r me d Z h o u th a tc i t i z e n s wi t h two c h ild re n m u st u n d e rg o ste riliza tio n p ro c e d u re s a n d th a t sh e m u st c o m p lyw ith th e f a m ily pl anni ng pol i cyw hen s he r etur ns t o C hi na. O t herthan not i ng thats oci al compensa t i on fe es w il l be lev ied, th e v il lage co m m ittee d id n o t st ate a n yo ther c o n seq u en ce fo r fa il u re t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e p o l i c y. Z hou and Pan al s o ar gue thatthe B I A err ed i n di s count i ng evi dence r efl ect i ng t hat a p e rs o n w h o h a d c h ild re n in J a p a n w a s f o rc ib ly ste ri liz e d w h e n h e re tu rn e d to C h in a . T he B I A expl ai ned thati taff or ded thi s evi dence l i tt l e w ei ghtbeca us e, among ot her th in g s, th e in d iv id u a l is f ro m F u jian P ro v in c e . T h e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t th e in d iv id u a l is fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, notZ hej i ang Pr ovi nce. B eca us e enf or cementof fa m i l ypl anni ng p o licie s v a rie s b a se d o n lo c a lity , w e f in d n o e rro r in th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to g iv e th is e v id e n c e little w e ig h t. 1Z heng w as fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce.

1. T he B I A not ed thata fi ne s chedul e s ubm i t t ed byZ hou di d noti dent i fyt he

2 appl i cabl e l ocal i t y . T he tr ans l at or ’ s cert i fi cat e, how ever , r efl ect s thatthe fi ne s chedul e i s forFuj i an Pr ovi nce. A . R . at347- 48. 9 Z h o u a n d P a n f

u rth e r c o n ten d th a t th e B IA e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e yf a iled to es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof ec onom i c per s ecut i on and s t er i l i zat i on. A s di s cus s ed above, t he B I A gave s ever al r eas ons forconcl udi ng thatZ hou and Pan had not es t abl i s hed a w el l - founded f earof ec onom i c per s ecut i on and addr es s ed i n det ai l the evi dence purpor t i ng t o s uppor ta fe arof s t er i l i zat i on. T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed by t he ad m i nis t rat i ve record and Z ho u an d P an h ave n ot s ho w n thatthe record com pels a contr aryconcl us i on. S im il arly , the re co rd d o es n o t com p el th e c o n clus ion that itis m o re 2 l i kel yt han nott hatZ hou w i l l be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o C hi na. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.