FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 07 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A0 95 -4 55 -4 58 XIU YUN WANG, a.k .a. XiuYunHuan g, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 20 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d B IRCH, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r XiuYunW an g, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C hi na , pet it io ns th is co urtto rev ie w th e o rd er o f th e Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) de nyin g h er un ti m el y m ot io n t o re op enhe r rem ov al pro ceed in gs , 8 C.F.R . § 1 00 3.2 (a). Wang arg ue s tha t (1 ) th is co urt s ho ul d l oo k t o t he 19 51 Gene vaRefu ge e Co nv en ti on (“ Refu ge e Co nv en ti on ”) an d the 19 67 Pro to co l Re la ti ng to th e St atus of R efu ge es (“ 19 67 Pro to co l” ) whe n i nt erp ret in g a ndap pl y in g t he pro cedur al li m it at io ns of t he Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act o f 19 52 (“ INA”); (2) th e BIA erredinde cl in in g to ex erci se it s d is cret io n t o su a s po nt e reo pe n h er ca se ; (3 ) se ve ral pro vi si on s o f th e INA vi ol at e th e Due Pro ces s C laus e, an d i ts equa l p ro te ct io n c om po ne nt , of th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on ; an d (4 ) th e BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h er m ot io n to reo pe n b as edon Ch in a’s ch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. I. W an g fi rs t ci te s t o t he no n- refo ul em en t pro vi si on , 8 U.S.C. 1

“Refoule ment” is a F renc h term for the expulsi on or re turn of a r efug ee f rom one state 1 to another. B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary (8th ed. 2004). Re latedly , “nonre foulement” is defined a s a ref ug ee’ s right not to be expelled from one state to a nother, e specia lly

to one wher e his or her

life or liberty would be thre atene d. Id. 2§ 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A), an d re fere nc es , in te r a li a , th e Ref ug ee Co nv en ti on , Arti cl e 3 3 2 3 of th e 1 96 7 P ro to co l, insupp ort o f he r cl ai m th atco urts m

us t l oo k t o Art ic le 33 of 4 th e Ref ug ee Co nv en ti on when in te rp ret in g a ndap pl y in g § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). Inde ci di ng whethe r to up ho ldth e BIA’s d eci si on , we are l im it edto th e gr ou nd s o n wh ic h t he de ci si on was re li ed . Se e NLRB v. U.S. Po st al Se rv . , 52 6 F.3 d 7 29 , 73 2 n .2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; Kwo n v . INS , 64 6 F .2d90 9, 9 16 (5t h C ir. M ay 4, 1 98 1) ( en ba nc ). W e o rd in ari ly w il l n otreac h aqu es ti on th atth e BIA d ecl in ed to ad dr es s. Se e Gon za les v. Th oma s , 54 7 U.S. 1 83 , 18 6- 87 , 12 6 S .Ct. 1 61 3, 1 61 5, 16 4 L.Ed .2d35 8 (2 00 6) ; INS v. Vent ur a , 53 7 U.S. 1 2, 1 6, 1 23 S. Ct. 3 53 , 35 5, 1 54 L.Ed.2 d 2 72 (20 02 ). Bec au se th e BIA d ecl in edto ad dr es s Wang ’s cla im th atth e p ro cedur al li mit at io ns an d t he ge ne ral no n- refo ul em en t p ro vi si on of t he INA sh ou ldbe in te rp ret edinli gh t o f se ve ral tre aty pro vi si on s, h er cl ai m

onth is po in t i s n ot Section 1231(b)( 3)(A) provides that “the Attorney Gene ral may

not remove a

n alien to 2 a countr y if [he] decide s that the alien’s life or fr eedom would bethreatened in that countr y beca use of the alien’s ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A ). United Nations Convention Relatingto the Status of Refug ees, July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 3 6259, T.I .A.S. No. 6577. Article 33 of

the 1967 Protocol provides that “No Contracting State shall expel or return 4 (“r efoule r”) a re fug ee in a ny manner whatsoeve r to the fr ontiers of ter ritories whe re his life or fre edom would be thre atene d on acc ount of his rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership of a particula r social group or political opinion. United Nations Protocol Relatingto the Status of Refug ees, a

rt. 33, J an. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267. 3pr op erl y

be fo re u s, an d we d o n otreac h i t. II. W an g a rg ue s tha t the BIA erre d i n d ecl in in g t o e xe rci se it s d is cret io n t o reo pe n h er ca se su a s

po nt e , pu rs ua ntto th e g en eral no n- refo ul em en t p ro vi si on set fo rth in8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). Sh e al so ch al le ng es th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he pr ov is io ns of t he INA th atpre ve ntanali ensubjec t t o afin al ord er o f rem ov al fro m reo pe ni ng he r cas e to pu rs ue a withh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al cla im ba se d o n c ha ng ed ci rcu m st an ces othe r th anth os e th ataro se inhe r co un try of n at io na li ty, bu t al lo w anali enwith afin al rem ov al ord er, wh o re tu rn s t o t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r rem ov al an d s eek s wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re (“ CAT”) ba se d o n c hang edcir cu m st an ces ari si ng ou ts id e th ei r co un try (“ returne e al ie ns ”), to ap pl y forth e sa m e rel ie f. She co nt en ds th atth e g en eral no n- refo ul em en t pr ov is io n, 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A), p ro te ct s h er i nd iv idua l ri gh ts to an ot he r he ari ng pri orto rem ov al . She co nt ras ts 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (a)( 5) an d 8 C.F.R. § 1 24 1.8 , whi chap pl y

to returne e al ie ns , with 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2, wh ic h app li es to al ie ns with fi na l re m ov al ord ers who ha ve no t yet le ft t he Uni te d S ta te s, an d arg ue s tha t the di ffer en ti al tre atm en t ac co rd edth es e two cla ss es of a li en s d en ie s

4du e p ro ces s an d e qu al pro te ct io n i n v io la ti on of t he Fif th Am en dm en t. Acco rd in g 5 to W an g, the rig ht s t o wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al an d t o b e fre e fro m pe rs ecu ti on are fu nd am en ta l; th us , th e d iff eren ti al tre atm en t o f returne e al ie ns , ver su s al ie ns subjec t t o d ep orta ti on who ha ve no t yet le ft, i s s ub ject t o s tri ctscrut in y . Fi rs t, t o t he ex te ntth atW an g a rg ue s tha t the BIA erre d i n re fu si ng to su a sp on te reo pe n h er ca se , we lac k ju ris di ct io n t o re vi ew it s d eci si on . Se e Len is v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 52 5 F .3d12 91 , 12 93 -9 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) (ho ld in g tha t we l ack juri sd ic ti on to he ar an ap pe al of the BIA’s de ni al of am ot io n t o re op enba se d o n it s su a s po nt e au th or it y ). Howev er, we ret ai n ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s an d que st io ns of l aw un de r th e INA rai se d i n apro pe rly-fil ed pe ti ti on forrev ie w. INA § 24 2( a)(2 )(D); 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D); Ferg us on v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 56 3 F .3d12 54 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Und er the equa l p ro te ct io n c om po ne ntof t he Due P ro ces s C laus e, th e go ve rn m en t m

us t treatsi m il arl y

si tu at edpe rs on s i n asi mil ar fa sh io n. Lei b v . Hil ls bo ro ugh C

ou nt y Pub . Tra ns

p. Co mm’n , 55 8 F .3d13 01 , 13 05 -0 6 (1 1t h C ir. 20 09 ). Whe n alaw cl as si fie s a p ers on insu cha way th atth e p ers on is tre at ed The ba si s fo r W an g’s d iff eren ti al tre atm en t cl ai m

is th ata returne e al ie n i s 5 al lo wedto pu rs ue a withh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im ba se d o n c ha ng ed ci rcu m st an ces othe r th anth os e th ataro se inth ei r co un try of n at io na li ty, whe reas al ie ns who ha ve no t yet le ft t he Uni te d S ta te s ar e li m it edto cla im in g c ha ng ed ci rcu m st an ces inth ei r co un try of n at io na li ty in o rd er t o re op enth ei r cas e. 5di ffer en tl y , ou r le ve l o f sc ru ti ny dep en ds on th e le gi sl atur e’s ba si s fo r th at

cl as si fic at io n. Id. Becaus e “ Co ng res s h as pl en ary po wer t o p as s l eg is la ti on co nc ern in g t he adm is si on an d e xc lu si on of a li en s,” f ed eral cla ss ifi cat io ns th at di st in gu is h a m on g g ro up s o f al ie ns are s ub ject o nl y to th e n on -d em an di ng rat io na l ba si s re vi ew. Rese ndiz -Alc atre z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 38 3 F .3d12 62 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . A “ le gi sl at iv e cl as si fic at io n s ub ject t o ra ti on al ba si s rev ie w is acco rd eda st ro ng pre su m pt io n o f va li di ty.” Hell er v. Doe , 50 9 U.S. 3 12 , 31 9, 1 13 S.Ct . 26 37 , 26 42 , 12 5 L.Ed .2d25 7 (1 99 3) . This co urt’s re vi ew of en act m en ts subjec t t o t he rat io na l b as is st an da rdm us t b e “ a p arad ig m

of ju di ci al res tra in t.” FCC v. Bea ch Co mmc’n s , 50 8 U.S. 3 07 , 31 4, 1 13 S.Ct . 20 96 , 21 01 , 12 4 L.Ed .2d21 1 (1 99 3) . If an y reas on ab ly con cei vabl e se t o f fac ts canpro vi de a rat io na l b as is forth e ch al le ng edleg is la ti ve cla ss ifi cat io n, we ar e requi redto up ho ldsu chleg is la ti ve cla ss ifi cat io ns , andth e ch al le ng in g p arty be ars th e b ur de n to de m on st rat e th atno co nc ei vabl e b as is ex is ts to supp ort the cla ss ifi cat io n. Rese ndiz -Alc atre

z , 38 3 F .3dat 1 27 1 (quo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d) . The no n- refo ul em en t p ro vi si on , § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A), p ro vi de s tha t “ th e Att orne y Gene ral m ay

no t re m ov e anali ento a co un try if th e Att orne y Gene ral de ci de s tha t the ali en ’s li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edinth atco un try be cau se of the ali en ’s race, re li gi on , nat io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al 6gr oup, o r po li ti cal op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). Pu rs ua ntto 8 C.F .R.

§ 1 00 3.2 (c)( 2) , an a li ensubjec t t o d ep orta ti on m us t fi le he r m ot io n t o re op en withi n 9 0 d ay s o f th e fi na l re m ov al ord er. 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(2 ); 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (A), (C)( i). Ho wev er, the re i s n o t im e li m iton th e fi li ng of am ot io n to reo pe n i f itis ba se d o n c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s ar is in g i n the co un try to whi chrem ov al ha s b een ord ered , andif t he ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th atm ot io n i s m at eri al , andwas n otav ai labl e o r di sc ov erab le at t he pri or pro ceed in g. 8 C.F.R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 3) (ii ); 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( ii ). Pu rs uantto 8 C.F .R. § 1 24 1.8 (a), an ali enwho il le ga ll y reen te rs th e U.S. aft er h av in g b een rem ov ed , or h av in g d ep art edvo lunt ari ly, whi le un de r a rem ov al or de r, sh al l b e rem ov edth ro ug h re in st at em en t o f th e p rio r or de r. 8 C.F .R. § 12 41 .8(a ). Howev er, i f su chanali enex pr es se s a f ear o f returni ng to th e co un try of rem ov al , th e reg ul at io ns pro vi de th atsh e “ sh al l b e imm ed ia te ly referre d t o a n as y lu m off ic er fo r anin te rv ie w to de te rm in e whe th er [s he ] ha s a r eas on ab le fearof pe rs ecu ti on or t ortu re.” Id. at§ 1 24 1.8 (e). Thus , th e returne e al ie n n eedno t s ho w ch an ge d c ou nt ry

co nd it io ns inord er t o b rin g a no th er cl ai m of areas on ab le fearof pe rs ecu ti on or t ortu re. Se e id. The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atm ot io ns to reo pe n a re d is fav or edin rem ov al pro ceed in gs be cau se “ [t]he re i s a s tro ng publ ic in te res t i n b rin gi ng 7li ti ga ti on to a cl os e as pro m pt ly as is co ns is te ntwith t he in te res t i n g iv in g t he adve rs ari es a fai r op po rtu ni ty to d ev el op an d p res en t the ir r es pe ct iv e cas es .” I.N.S. v. Abu du , 48 5 U.S. 9 4, 1 07 , 10 8 S .Ct. 9 04 , 91 3, 9 9 L.Ed .2d90 (19 88 ). Bec au se W an g h as fai le d t o n eg at e “ ev ery co nc ei vabl e b as is whi chm ig ht supp ort” (1) all owi ng a returne e al ie n wh o e xp res se s fe ar o f returni ng to he r ho m e co un try to h av e anin te rv ie w with a n a sylum off ic er, an d (2 ) ba rri ng anali en , who is subjec t t o arem ov al ord er an d h as no t yet le ft t he Uni te d S ta te s, fr om fil in g a n un ti m el y m ot io n t o re op en , exc ep t upo n ash owi ng of c hang edco un try con di ti on s, we co nc lu de th atW an g’s co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es are wi th ou t m eri t. III. W an g n ex t ar gu es th athe r ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d supp orti ng do cum en ta ti onpro vi de d i n h er m ot io n t o re op enest ab li sh eda pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f, be cau se (1) sh e subm it te d aco py of 1 99 6 fa m il y pl an ni ng reg ul at io ns fro m Lian g J iang Co un ty in th e Fu jianPro vi nc e th atrequi re, in te r a li a , st eri li zat io n o f a h us ba ndor wi fe withi n 4 0 d ay s o f th e b irt h o f th ei r se co ndch il d; (2) Ch in a’s fam il y pl an ni ng po li ci es are b ei ng en fo rcedag ai ns t Ch in es e n at io na ls with c hi ldrenbo rninCh in a an d t ho se with c hi ldrenbo rnab ro ad ; an d (3 ) sh e h adsubm it te d c ert ifi cat es of st eri li zat io n o f two of h er fri en ds who li ve inCh an gl e Ci ty. W an g c on te nd s tha t 8to ve rif

y th es e supp orti ng do cu m en ts wou ldrequi re the ass is tanc e o f Ch in es e go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s, an d t o re qu es t s uc h a ss is ta nc e wou ldbe anun du e b ur de n. W an g a ls o a rg ue s tha t the BIA erre d i n c on cl ud in g t ha t s he ha d n otsh ownth atsh e wou ldbe subjec te d t o e co no m ic ha rm am ou nt in g t o p ers ecu ti on . She ne xt co nt en ds th atth e St at e Dep art m en t’s 2 00 8 C ou nt ry Rep ort o n C hi na(“ Co un try Rep ort” ) sh ows th atco erci ve pre gn an cy term in at io n p ract ic es are u se d b y th e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t. The refo re, h er fea r is ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e th atsh e, m or e li ke ly tha n n ot , wou ldbe st eri li zedup on be in g re tu rn edto Ch in a, an d h er m ot io n to reo pe n s ho ul d h av e b een gra nt edbe cau se sh e m ad e a p rima facie sh owi ng for withh ol di ng of r em ov al . W an g a ls o c on te nd s tha t the ev id en ce p res en te d reg ard in g C hi na ’s stric te r en fo rcem en t o f po pu la ti on pl an ni ng rul es est ab li sh eda ch an ge inCh in a’s co un try con di ti on s, an d t hu s, s he arg ue s, s he is th ereb y ex em pt fro m th e 9 0- da y

fil in g d ead li ne . W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w cla im s tha t the pe ti ti on er fa il edto rai se be fo re the BIA, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e BIA ch os e to su a s po nt e ad dr es s the m . Amaya -Art un du ag a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 -5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs forab us e of di sc ret io n. Liv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 48 8 F .3d13 71 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). “ Our rev ie w is li m it edto de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n a n 9arb it rary or cap ric io us m an ne r.” Ji an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 56 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 56

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . An al ie n m ay

fil e o ne m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs , andsu ch m ot io n g en eral ly m

us t b e fi le d wi th in 90 da y s o f th e d at e o f th e BIA’s fi na l o rd er. INA § 2 40 (c)( 7) (A), (C)( i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (A), (C)( i). Ho wev er, the 90 - da y ti m e li m itdo es no t ap pl y if t he m ot io n t o re op enis fil edon th e b as is of ch an ge d c irc um st an ces inth e co un try of the m ov an t’s n at io na li ty. 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( ii ); 8 C.F.R. § § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 3) (ii ). To m eetth is ex cep ti on , a m ov an t m

us t s ho w m at eri al ev id en ce tha t was no t av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e be endi sc ov eredor p res en te d a t the pri orhe ari ng . 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (ii ); 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(3 )(i i). Un de r 8 C .F.R. § 1 28 7.6 , an “ of fic ia l d oc um en t,” s uc h as a cert ifi cat e o f st eri li zat io n s ur ge ry or abo rti on , is requi redto “be ev id en cedby anoff ic ia l p ub li cat io n t he reo f, orby a cop y att es te d b y

anoff ic er s o aut ho riz ed ,” bu t u no ffi ci al do cu m en ts , su chas l et te rs fro m fam il y m em be rs or n ei gh bo rs ne ed no t b e so ev id en ced . 8 C.F.R. § 12 87 .6. “ An al ie n wh o a tt em pt s t o s ho w th atth e ev id en ce i s m at eri al be ars a he av y burd enan d m

us t p res en t ev id en ce tha t de m on st rat es th at , if the pro ceed in gs were o pe ne d, the ne w evi de nc e wou ldli ke ly ch an ge th e res ul t i n t he cas e.” Ji an g , 56 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 56 -5 7. In Li , we hel d t ha t an ali en ’s ext en si ve , “un di sp ut edev id en ce o f a rec en t 10cam

pa ig n i n h er h om e v il la ge inCh in a o f fo rcedst eri li zat io n warran te d re op en in g ba se d o n c hang edco un try con di ti on s.” Li , 48 8 F .3dat 1 37 5. We no te d t ha t the BIA i n Li ’s cas e d idno t fi ndeit he r Li’s s up po rti ng affi davi t n or he r m ot he r’s affi da vi t i nc red ib le , andth atth e b ack gr ou ndm at eri al s s ub m it te d s up po rte d Li ’s fearth atFu

jianPro vi nc e o ffi ci al s h ad“ in cen ti ve s an d d is cret io n” to st eri li ze wom enwith m or e th anon e ch il d. Id. W e d et erm in edth at“ Li’s ev id en ce o f a rece ntcam

pa ig n o f fo rcedst eri li zat io n i n h er h om e v il la ge , evi de nc e co ns is te nt with t he co nc lu si on of r ecen t g ov ern m en t re po rts , cle arl y sat is fie d t he cri te riafora m ot io n t o re op enhe r rem ov al pro ceed in gs .” Id . In Ji an g , we add res se d t he BIA’s de ni al of J ia ng ’s m ot io n t o re op enba se d on ch an ge d c ou nt ry

co nd it io ns inCh in a, fi le d a fte r sh e h adtwo ch il dr eninth e Uni te d S ta te s, an d i n wh ic h s he cla im edth atsh e fea redpe rs ecu ti on if re tu rn edto Ch in a b ecau se he r vi ol at io n o f Ch in a’s on e-ch il d p ol ic y wou ldlea d h er t o b e fo rci bl y st eri li zed . Ji an g , 56 8 F .3dat 1 25 4. We no te d t ha t the cas e was

“ st art li ng ly lik e th e cas e o f Li ” wit h re ga rdto th e ev id en ti al fou nd at io n p res en te d in each cas e. Id. at 1 25 7- 58 . Ji an g arg ue d t ha t “ rece ntin crea se d e nf or cem en t o f th e o ne -ch il d p ol ic y in th e Fu jianPro vi nc e, an d m or e p art ic ul arl y , inhe r ho m et own , reas on ab ly ledhe r to fearth atsh e to o wo ul d fa ce p ers ecu ti on inth e fo rm of f or cedst eri li zat io n i f sh e 11were re m ov edto Ch in a.” Id. at12 58 . W e h el d t ha t: [t]he BIA’s de ci si on ag ai n o ve rlo ok ed , or, i ne xp li cab ly di sc ou nt ed , no t o nl y

th e two affi da vi ts Ji an g p ro vi de d i n supp ort o f he r pe ti ti on , det ai li ng for cedst eri li zat io ns in Ji an g’s o wn h om et own—n ei th er o f whi chth e BIA o r IJ fo un d i nc red ib le —b utals o t he 20 04 an d 2 00 5 C ou nt ry Rep orts , whi chun am

bi gu ou sl y co rro bo rat edin ci de nt s o f co erce d s te ril iz at io n, an d e xp li ci tl y reco gn iz edth atth e Fu jianPro vi nc e is kn own forus in g ‘un sp eci fie d rem ed ia l m eas ur es ’ to de al with t ho se invi ol at io n o f fam il y pl an ni ng po li ces . Id. Acco rd in gl y , we hel d, “ Ji an g’s ev id en ce es tabl is he d a pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , esp eci al ly in l ig htof Li ,” an d d ire ct edth e BIA t o re op enpro ceed in gs to co ns id er the m eri ts of h er cl ai m s fo r as y lu m an d withh ol di ng of r em ov al . Id . Bec au se W an g’s ev id en ce fa il edto est ab li sh ch an ge d c on di ti on s wi th res pe ctto Ch in a’s en fo rcem en t o f it s o ne -ch il d p ol ic y , we con cl ud e th atth e BIA co rrec tl y de ni edW an g’s m ot io n t o re op en . PETITION DENIED.

12