2010 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

9-8-2010 

# E n Huang 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2437

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_2010

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 2010 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

" E n Huan g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 524. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/524P 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- 2437

_____________ E N HUI HUANG , Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

_______________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A 1: A 099- 583- 314) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n . H e n ryD o g in

_______________ A r gued J ul y12, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , J O R D A N , a n d G R E E N A W A Y , J R .,

C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed Sept ember8, 2010)2 _______________ Ri c h a r d T a r z i a [ AR GUE D] P. O

. B ox 489 B el l e M ead, N J 08502 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner E ri c H

. H o lder, Jr. T hom as W

. H us s ey S a d a M a n i c k a m [ AR GUE D] J oan E. Sm i l ey U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i v. P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge

. E n H ui H uang appea l s an or der of t he B oard of I m m igrat i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) r ever s i ng t he gr antof as y l um ent er ed by an im m igr at i on j udge ( “I J ”)

. H uang cont ends t hat t he B I A appl i ed the i nco rr ects t andar d of r evi ew w hen eval uat i ng t he mer i t s of the I J ’ s di s pos i ti on, and thati tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o cons i der evi dence t hats he s ubm i t t ed f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w illD uan ent er ed the U n it ed S ta t es i n 2000 and appl i ed for 1 asy lu m the s am e y ea r. A n IJ de n ied h is pe ti ti o n , an d the B IA a f f ir m e d th a t d e n ia l s o m e tim e in 2 0 0 3

. 3 gran t H uang’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand t hi s cas e t o t he B I A forfur t hercons iderat i on of hercl ai m s foras y l um and w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. I . Fac t ualBackg r ound Hu a n g i s a c i t i z e n a nd na t i v e o f Ch i n a , wh o s e h o me v i l l a g e i s l o c a t e d i n t h e t o wn o f Gu a n T o u , F u j i a n P r o v i n c e . On Febru ary1, 2003, s he ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es t hr ough W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. w i t houtval i d entr ydocument at i on. She i ni t ial lym oved t o A l t oona, Penns y l vani a, w her e s he bega n a r om ant i c r el at ion shi p w i t h D uan Zheng H uang, w ho i s al s o an ill e g a l alie n a n d c iti z e n o f C h in a . T h e c o u p le late r re lo c a ted to 1 N ew Y or k C i t y , w her e theyw er e marr i ed, an d w her e H uang g a v e b irth to th e ir f

irst c h ild , a s o n , o n O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e ir s e c o n d c h ild , a d a u g h te r, f o llo w e d o n A p ri l 2 7 , 2 0 0 6

. O n D ec em b er 1 , 2 0 0 5 , w h il e pre g n an t w ith h er d au g h ter, H uang fi l ed a pe t i t i on for p o li t i cal as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of rem o v al, an d 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 ( “CAT”)

. Th e p e t i t i o n s o u g h tr e l i e f o n th e g r o u n d th a t , once H uang gave bi r t h t o her daught er , s he w oul d be i n vi ol at i on of C h in e se f

a m ily -p lan n in g p o licie s, w h ich g e n e ra llyp e r m it C hi nes e ci t i zens to have onl yone chi l d. H uang s t at ed i n the pet it i on t hatherm ot her , aunt , and thr ee a unt s - i n- l aw had un dergon e com pu lso ry st eri l i zat i on atthe h and s of C hinese4 aut h o r i t i e s , a n d t h a t s h e wou l d l i k e wi s e b e “ f o r c e d t o be s t er i l i zed” under t hos e pol i ci es i f s he r eturned t o C hi na. ( R

. at 2 2 8 3 .) T he fi l i ng of H uang’ s as y l um pet i t i on appar ent l yal ert ed t he D epart m ent of H om el and Secur i t y ( “D H S”) t o h er il l egal s t atus i n t he U ni t ed St at es b ec au s e, on J anuary31, 2006, t he governm ents erved H uang w i t h a not i ce t o appea r , char gi ng her w i t h bei ng a r emovabl e al i en. R emoval pr ocee di ngs c o m m e n c e d in N e w Y o rk b u t, be c a u se H u a n g h a d m o v e d to E as tO r ange, N ew J er s eyar ound t he t i m e thather daught erw as b o rn , h e r c a s e w a s tr a n s f e rr e d to N e w J e rs e y . A

. P ro ce ed ings b efor e the IJ O n A p ri l 25 , 2 0 0 7 , an IJ c o n d u cted a h ea ri n g o n H u an g ’s p e t i t i o n . H u a n g t e s t i f

i e d t h a t , b e c a u s e s h e h a s v i o l a t e d f a m i l yplanni ng pol i ci es , s he fe ar s s he w i l l be s t er i l i zed i f s he r eturns t o C hi na. T o corr obor at e hert es t i m ony , H uang pr oduced a l ett er from her i n-l aw s, L i P i ng Y e and C hu n C ai W ang , dated A ug ust 8 , 2 0 0 6 ( “ t h e i n - l a ws ’ l e t t e r ” ) , i n whi c h h e ri n - l a ws s t a t e d that t heys poke w i t h Fuj i an fa m i l y - pl anni ng author i t i es w ho i nform ed them t hatH uang w i l l be s t er i l i zed a nd fi ned i f s he r etur ns t o C hi na. She al s o s ubm i t t ed an affi davi t fr om a nat i ve of Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w ho r es i ded i n J apan as a s tudent fors ever al y ear s and fa t her ed tw o chi l dr en w hi l e l i vi ng t her e. A cc o rdi ng to th e a f f id a v it, F u jian f a m ily -p lan n in g a u th o rities f o rc e d h im to b e s te ri lized w h en h e re turn ed to C h ina. In a d d it ion , the IJ consi der ed a l et t erdat ed J anuary9, 2007, thatthe governm ent o b tain e d f

ro m th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t (“ th e 2 0 0 7 S tate D epart m ent l et t er ”) r egar di ng w hethercompul s orys t er i l i zat i on co n ti n u es to o cc u r i n F u ji an P rov ince

. A cc o rdin g to the let ter, “C hi nes e off

i ci al s as s ertt hat n ati o n al l aw s and pol i cyand5 pr ovi nci al r egul at i ons do notperm i tforc ed abort i ons or s t er i l i zat i ons , [butnonethel es s ] ther e i s evi dence thattheyhave tak e n p lac e .. . .” (R . at 1 3 5 3 .) T h e lette r re f e rre d to th e S tate D ep artm en t’ s 2 0 0 7 P rof il e o f A sy lum C lai m s an d C o u n try C o n d iti o n s f

o r C h in a (“ th e 2 0 0 7 A sy lu m P ro f ile” ), ac c o rd in g to w h ich th e D e p artm en t had rec eive d rep o rt s o f c o m p u lsory s te ri liz a tio n s in F u

jia n P ro v in c e a s re c e n tly a s 2 0 0 6

. T he IJ al so cons i der ed the St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2006 C o u n tr yR epor ton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces ( “the 2006 C ount r yR epor t ”) , r efl e c t i ng t h a t“ f o r c e d s t e r i l i z a t i o n s a n d a b o r t i o n s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f the nat i onal l aw , cont i nued t o be document ed i n rur al ar eas . D ur i ng [ 2 0 0 6 ], o f

f ic ials

.. . in F u

jian p ro v in c e re p o rte d lyf o rc ib ly s t er i l i zed w om en. ” (I

d. a t 9 6 6 .) H ow ever , evi dence from t he St at e D epart m entw as e q u iv o c a l re g a rd in g w h e th e r F u jian P ro v in c e a u th o rities w o u ld lik el y fi nd t hat an al i en l i ke H uan g, w ho had given birth to m u lti p le c h ild re n a b r o a d , ins tea d o f in C h in a , h a d a c tu a lly v io late d f

a m ily - p lan n in g p o licie s. A c c o rd in g to th e 2 0 0 7 S tate D epart m entl et t er , for ei gn- bor n chi l dr en are notcons i der ed perm anentr es i dent s of C hi na and ther efor e do not“count ” for p u rp o s e s o f

f a mi l y - p l a n n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s u n l e s s t h e yb e c o me C hinese ci t i zens or re g ister as m em bers of t heirparent s’ h o u s e h o ld . (I

d. at 1353. ) C oupl es have no obl i gat i on t o r egi s t er f o re ig n -b o rn c h ild re n , the lette r in d ica tes , b u t f a m ili e s w ith unr egi s t er ed chi l dr en mustpayaddi t i onal fee s forunr egi s t er ed ch il d ren to h av e a cc ess to so cial ser v ic e s s u ch as m ed ical care a n d p u b lic e d u c a tio n . O th e r e v id e n c e f ro m th e S tate D ep artm en t, inclu d ing a 2 0 0 2 b u ll eti n d esig n ed to g ive trav elers a n o v e rv iew o f

C h in e se so c iety , sta tes th a t “ [ c ] h ild re n b o rn in t he U ni t ed St at es t o [C hi nes e] n ati o nal par ent s . . . ar e notT he C hi nes e ce nt r al governm ent i n B ei j i ng has pr om ul gat ed 2 a nat i onw i de fa m i l y - plan n ing statu te th at req u ir es e ac h p rov ince and mun ici pal i t yt o es t abl i s h i t s ow n s etof fa m i l y - pl anni ng r egul at i ons and t o cr eat e both pr ovi nci al and munici pal author i t i es t o over s ee and enfor ce t hos e r egul at i ons . W hi l e the r ecor d does notexpre s s l ydes cr i be the func t i ons of the Fuj i an D epart m entof Fam i l yPl anni ng A dm i ni s t r at i on, i tappea r s t hat t he FD FPA i s t he author i t ychar ged w i t h over s eei ng pr ovi ncew id e f a m ily-p la n n in g p o lic ie s . 6 r ecogni zed a s U

. S. ci t i zens underC hi nes e nat i onal i t yl aw ” and are i nste a d “ tr eat ed solel yas [C hinese] nati on al s byC hinese aut hor i t i es w hen i n C hi na. ” (I d. at33 9. ) Th atpo si t i on is confi r m ed bya 2003 admi ni s t r at i ve decis i on i s s ued byt he Fuj i an D ep artm en t o f F ami l y - Pl anni ng A dm i ni s t r at i on (“FD F P A ” ), w hich st at es that “i f ei t her parentrem ai ns a

2 C hi nes e nat i onal and ci t i zen w i t houtperm anentr es i dence ov ers eas[, ] anychil d o f such a cou ple shall be tr eat ed as a C hi nes e nat i onal and ci t i zen f or. . . dom es t i c ad m i ni s t r at i ve purpos es r egar dl es s of t he chi l d’ s nat i onal i t yconfe r r ed byhi s or hercountr yo f bi r t h. ” (I d. at1895. ) T hus , t hatadmi ni s t r at i ve d e c isio n a ss e rts th a t f

o re ig n -b o rn c h ild re n o f

C h in e se n a tio n a ls ar e aut om at i cal l y count ed as C hi nes e r es i dent s forpurpos es of F u jia n f a m ily-p la n n in g p o lic ie s . ( See i d. at1896 ( s t at i ng, as t he off i ci al po si t i on of the F D F P A , t hat an em ploy ee of the C hinese g o v e rn m e n t w h o “ re p ro d u c e d a se c o n d c h ild w h ile o n a f a m ily vi s i ti n t he U ni t ed St at es i s i n vi olat ion o f fa m i l y - pl anni ng reg u lat ion s”).)7 C it ing the c o n fli cti n g ev ide n ce , the IJ g ran ted H u an g ’s as y l um appl i cat i on. T he I J concl uded thatH uang poss es s ed a w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecut i on beca us e t he bi r t h of hers econd chi l d l i kel ypl ace d heri n vi ol at i o n o f F uj i an fa m i l y - pl anni ng r egul at i ons . W hi l e r ecogni zi ng t hatthe 2007 S t at e D epart m ent l et t eri nt i m at ed that an al i en i n H uang’ s s i tuat i on w oul d notbe steri l i zed, t he I J nev ertheles s fou nd t hat “[t ]he chil dren w ill come t o t he att ent i on of the author i t i es and there’ s a s t r ong pos s i bi l i t y[H uang] w i l l be forbi dden t o have anyot herchi l dr en and s om e s or tof pr ocedur e w i l l be ca r r i ed outon herand/ orher h u s b a n d .” (R . a t 1 3 2 2 .) B

. P ro ce ed ings b efor e the B IA T he governm ent appea l ed t o t he B I A , chal l engi ng the g ran t of asy lum o n the b a s is that rep o rt s o f c o m p u lsory s t er i l i zat i on var i ed gr ea tl yfro m m u n ici p ali tyto m u n ici p ali tyand th a t H uan g h ad fa i l ed to show she w ou l d return t o an area in Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w her e s uch pr ocedur es actual l yoccurr ed. T he governm ental s o cont ended thatH uang l acke d a w el l

- founded fea rof per s ecut i on becaus e s he coul d avoi d s t er i l i zat i on by choos i ng nott o r egi s t erherchi l dr en as perm anentr es i dent s of C h in a . 1

. H

uang’s N ew l y Subm i t t ed Evi dence I n r es pons e, H uang s ubm i t t ed s ever al pi ece s of evi dence t hats he had notpr oduced be for e the I J butw hi ch s he ur ged the B I A t o cons i deri n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . A m ong t hos e exhi bi t s w as a D H S reportdated A pri l 17 , 20 07 , that cont ai ned a res po nse f r o m th e F u

j i a n P r o v i n c e Of

f i c e o f Fo r e i g n Af

f a i r s t o a DHSW hi l e the r epor tw as notpr epar ed forus e i n H u an g’ s cas e, 3 sev era l of

the d o cu m en ts i t discu sses w ere su b m itted in su p p o rt o f h e r p e titio n . 8 i nqui r ys eeki ng, among ot herthi ngs , cl ar i ficat i on r egar di ng w hetherfor ei gn- bor n chi l dr en of Chi nes e nat i onal s ar e count ed u n d e r F u

jian f a m ily -p la n n in g p o licie s. F u jian o f f icia ls 3 resp o n d ed that w h ethe r fo reign -bo rn c h ild ren co u n t t o w ard f a m ily -p lan n in g q u o tas d e p e n d s u p o n w h e th e r th e ir p a r e n ts re g iste r th e m a s p e rm a n e n t C h in e se re sid e n ts w h e n th e f a m ily r etur ns t o C hi na. C hi l dr en w ho have bee n form al l yr egi s t er ed w ill b e c o n s id e r e d f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

f a m il y-p la n n in g e n f

o r c e m e n t. C hi l dr en w ho have n o t be en form al l yr egi s t er ed ar e not cons i der ed perm anent r es i dent s of C hi na and t her efor e d o not c o u n t, b u t, as in d icated in the 2 0 0 7 S tat e D ep artm en t l ett er, parent s m ustpayadd i t i on al fees i n o rderfor such ch i l dren t o u se m a n ys o c ia l s e rv ic e s . In addit i on t o the D H S report , H uan g sub m i t t ed C hinese fami l y - pl anni ng pr opaganda , C hi nes e tr avel document s forher chi l dr en, and tw o admi ni s t r at i ve deci s i ons fr om t he FD FPA and the C hangl e C i t yPl anni ng B oar d i ndi cat i ng thatfor ei gn- born chil dren are coun t ed fo r fam i l y -pl ann i ng pu rposes. S he als o s ubm i t t ed tw o document s dat ed N ov em b er15, 2007, obt ai ned fr om herm ot her

- i n- l aw , L i Pi ng Y e. T he fi r s tdocumenti s an a f f i d a v i ti n w h i c h Y e t e s t i f i e s t h a ts h e i n q u i r e d w i t h f a m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s i n H uang’ s hus band’ s hom et ow n of Fuzhou, Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, w hetherH uang w il l f ace s anct i ons i f s he re tu rn s to C h in a . A c c o rd in g to th e a f f id a v it, th o se o f

f ic ials i nform ed Y e that , des pi t e the nat i onal governm ent ’ s pol i cy9 agai ns tm andat or ys t er i l i zat i on, “C hi nes e ci t i zens . . . m us tobey t h e f a mi l y p l a n n i n g p o l i c y o f Ch i n a , o n e c h i l d I UD i n s e r t e d , t wo chi l dr en s t er i l i zat i on; unl es s they ar e notC hi nes e ci t i zens [. A] l t h o u g h , [ Hu a n g a n d h e r h u s b a n d ] g a v e b i r t h [ ] t o two chi l dr en i n U

. S. , one of t he coupl e m us t be s t er i l i zed w i t h fi nes as w el l ” upon r eturn ing t o C hi na. ( R

. at148. ) T he s econd documenti s a w r i t t en ce r t i fi cat i on purpor t edl yi s s ued byFuzhou f a m i l y- p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s i n r e s p o n s e t o Y e ’ s i n q u i r y, i ndi cat i ng t hatan “I U D m us tbe i ns ert ed aft er gi vi ng bi r t h t o a boy , and ca n notgi ve bi r t h agai n. T he s econd c hi l d i s al l ow ed w ith b irth p e rm it af

ter in ter v a l o f

f o u r y e a rs if

th e f irst c h ild is a gi r l , s t er i l i zat i on m us t be i m pl ement ed af t ert hat

. ” (I

d. a t 1 5 2 .) H uang ar gued that , i f the B I A w as i ncl i ned t o r ever s e the IJ’ s g ra n t o f

a sy lu m o n th e e x is ti n g re c o rd , itsh o u ld nevert hel es s aff

ir m bas ed on the new l ys ubm i t t ed evi dence

. H uang al s o as ked , in a m ot i on fi l ed as partof herbr i ef (h e re in a f ter “ th e m o tio n to re m a n d ” ), th a t, if th e B IA re f u se d to c o n sid e r th e n e w e v id e n c e , itn e v e rth e les s re m a n d th e c a se to t he I J and r eopen the rec o r d forcons i der at i on of thatevi dence byt he IJ in the fi r s ti ns t ance . T he B I A deni ed the mot i on i n a footnot e, s t at i ng t hat“[t ] he B oar d does not co ns i derevi dence s ubm i t t e d o n a p p e a l ” a n d th a t , i n a n ye v e n t , ma n yo f the d o c u m e n ts w e re c u m u la tiv e o f o th e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . (I d. at 4 n

. 1

. ) 2. The Mer i t s of H uang’s A s

yl um P et i t i on O n t he m er i t s , t he B I A r evi ew ed de novo t he I J ’ s gr antof a sy lu m a n d re v e rse d it, sa y in g th a t an o b jec tiv e lyre a s o n a b le per s on i n Hua n g ’ s s i tu a t i o n wou l d n o th a v e h a rb o r e d a f e a rofT he B I A al s o r ej ect ed H uang ’ s cl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng of 4 re m o v a l an d re lief

u n d e r th e C A T , f

o r e ss e n tially th e re a so n s it gave f o r d eni al of heras y l um pet i t i on. T he C A T cl ai m i s not b e f o re u s o n a p p e a l. 10 p e rse c u tio n . T h e B IA g a v e f o u r re a so n s f

o r its h o ld in g . F irst, it o b se r v e d th a t n o u n if o rm p o licyo f

ste riliza tio n e x ists in Fuj i an Pr o v i n c e a n d th a t , whi l e v i o l a t o r s o f f a mi l y - p l a n n i ng pol i ci es s om et i m es fac e fi nes , o ff i ci al s oft en i m pos e no s anct i ons . Second, i tnot ed thatH uang had pro d u ced no evi dence t hats he w oul d be i ndi vi dual l yt ar get ed for s t er i l iz at i on. T hi r d, t he B I A concl uded thatthe af fi davi tfr om th e C h in e se c iti z e n w h o re tu rn e d f r o m Ja p a n w a s u n re liab le beca us e i t“ d i d n o tc o n t a i n a l l o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g f

a c t s o f t h at cas e. ” (I d. at5. ) Fi nal l y , the age ncyr ej ect ed the i n- l aw s ’ l ett er as a bas i s fora w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on beca us e the le tte r c o n t a i n e d m u ltip le la y e rs o f h e a rs a y . T he B I A di d not comm enton t he St at e D epar tm entr epor t s i nt i m at i ng t hat compul s or y s t er i l i zat i on cont i nues i n s om e par t s of F u j i an Pr ovi nce. O n N ovember 6, 2008, t he B I A ent er ed a f i nal or der o f re m o v a l. H u a n g th e n f ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . 4
I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ) ( 1 ) to rev iew a fina l o rde r o f rem o v al issue d b y the B IA

. T h e B IA pos s es s es appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overI J s ’ deci s i ons , w hi ch the B I A m ayei t her s um m ar i l y aff i r m oranal y ze i n an i ndepende nt o p in io n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )(4 )-(6 ). If th e B IA su m m a rily aff i r m s an I J ’ s or der , w e r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on as the fi nal11 a d m in is tr a tiv e d e te rm in a tio n . Konan v. A t t’ y G en. , 432 F. 3d 4 9 7 , 5 0 0 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). W hen the B IA i ssues a s eparate o p inion – as itd id in H u a n g ’s ca se – w e re v iew the B IA ’s d ispo sit ion an d loo k to th e IJ’ s ruli n g o n ly inso fa r a s th e B IA d e f e rs to it. C havar r i a v. G onz al ez , 4 4 6 F

. 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). T he B I A ’ s rul i ng on an as y l um pet i t i on i s “conc l us i ve unl es s m ani fes t l ycontr aryt o the l aw and an a bus e of dis cret i on . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 125 2(b)( 4)( D ). W e revi ew t he f a c ts u p o n w h ic h the B IA ’s de cisi o n rests t o en su re tha t th eyare s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om t he re cor d cons i der ed as a w h o le , Es

pi nos a- C or t ezv. A t t ’

y G en. , 607 F. 3d 101, 106 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ), an d w e w ill re v e rse b a se d o n a f a c tu a l er ro r o n lyif any reas onabl e fa ct
- fi nderw oul d be “c om pel l ed t o concl ude o therw ise, ” 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). W e re v iew the B IA ’s l e ga l c on c l us i on s d e novo , butw e ac cor d defe r ence under C hevr on v. N

at i onalR es our ces D ef

ens e C ouns el

, I nc. , 46 7 U. S. 837 ( 1984) , t o i t s i nt erpr et at i on of s t atut es and re gul at i ons w ith in its e n f

o rc e m e n t ju ri s d ic tio n . W a n gv . A sh c ro

ft , 368 F. 3d 3 4 7 , 3 4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); s ee al s o A uerv. R obbi ns , 519 U

. S. 452, 4 6 1 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a ta n a g e n c y ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f i t s o wn r egul at i ons i s “contr ol l i ng unl es s pl ai n lyerr oneous or i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he r egul at i on” ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks ex clud ed )). I I I . D i s cus s i on H uang r ai s es t hr ee i s s ues on appea l

. Fi r s t , s he ar gues t hat t he B I A di d not appl y t he cor r ect s t andar d of r evi ew t o the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat sh e had a w el l

- founded f earof12 per s ecut i on. Second, s he cont ends t hat , even i f the B I A appl i ed th e c o rre c t sta n d a rd s o f re v iew , it a b u se d its d isc r e ti o n in r ever s i ng t he I J ’ s gr antof as y l u m b ec au s e the evi dence of r ecor d w as s uffi ci entt o s how thats he has a w el l

- founded f ear of per s ecut i on i n t he form of m andat orys t er i l i zat i on. T hi r d, s he cont ends t hatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o r emand hercas e t o t he I J t o cons i derhernew evi dence

. B eca us e the m er i t s of H uang’ s as y l um pet i t i on are int ert w i ned w i t h her c h a llen g e re g a rd in g th e B IA ’s s tan d a rd s o f re v ie w , w e w ill a d d re ss th o se iss u e s to g e th e r b e f o re d isc u ss in g th e m o tio n to r emand. A

. The A s

yl um P et i t i on S e c tio n 2 0 8 o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t ( “I N A ”) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1158, confe r s author i t yupon t he A t t orney G e n e ra l to g ra n t as y lu m to a lien s w h o e n ter th e U n ited S tate s if th e yq u a lif

yf o r r e f u g e e s ta tu s . I

d. § 1158( b) ( 1) ( A )

. T he A t t or ney G ener al has del egat ed thatauthor i t yt o i m m i gr at i on j udges , w hos e dec i s i ons ar e r evi ew abl e by t he B I A

. 8 C

. F. R

. §§ 1 0 0 3 .1 (b ), 1 0 0 3 .1 4

. T o qual i fy for r efuge e st atus , an al i en m us t s how thathe i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o hi s nat i ve countr ydue ei t her t o pas tper s ecut i on or a w el l

- founded fea r of futur e per s ecut i on. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ); C h a v a rr ia , 4 4 6 F

. 3d at516. T he I NA c o n t a i n s n o s t a tu t o r yd e f i n i t i o n o f

“ p e r s e c u t i o n , ” b u twe have e xpl ai ned that the t erm does notencompas s al l form s of u n f a ir, u n ju st, d isc rim in a to ry , o r u n law f u l trea tm e n t; rath e r it c o v e rs o n lyse v e re h u m a n itaria n m is tre a tm e n t, su c h a s “ d e a th threa ts, inv o lun taryco n fin em en t, tortu re, an d o ther se v ereM andat or ybir t h- contr ol m eas ur es s hor tof abort i on or 5 s t er i l i z a t i o n , s u c h a s i n s e r t i o n o f a n I UD o rr e q u i r ed gynecol ogi cal s cr eeni ngs , do not , on t hei row n, r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on and ther efor e ca nnotbe the s ol e s uppor tof an a w a rd o f a s y lu m . I

n r e M- F

- W- & L

- G- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 633, 63 6-37 (B

. I. A

. 20 08 ). H ow ever, such m easures do qu al i fyas a
“ c o e rc iv e p o p u latio n c o n tro l p ro g ra m ,” an d a n a lien m a yo b tain as y l um i f he r es i s t s thos e meas ur es and the governm ent p e rs e c u te s h im a s a re s u lt. I d. at638. I n t hi s ap p ea l, H uang seek s asy l um based o n the fear that s he w i l l be st eri l i zed if re tu rn e d to C h in a . T h a t f e a r, if w e ll-fo u n d e d , u n q u e stio n a b ly e n title s h e r t o re lie f

. 13 aff r ont s t o t he l i fe orfr eedom of t he appl i cant
. ” G om ezZul uaga v. A t t ’

y G en. , 5 2 7 F

. 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )

. To cons t i tut e a bas i s foras y l um , the per s ecut i on m us thave be en m o ti v ated b ya statu tori ly p rotec ted g rou n d , n am elythe a li en ’s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , pol i t i cal opi ni on, or m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a)(4 2 )(A )

. A per s on w h o i s f o r c e d t o u n d e r g o a n a b o r t i o n o r a s t e r i l i z a t i o n , or w ho has been pe r s ecut ed forr efus i ng t o compl yw i t h a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pol i cy , i s deemed t o have bee n p er s ecut ed bas ed on pol i t i cal opi ni on. Id

. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( B ). S im ila rl y , a 5 p e rso n w h o h a s a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f th o se c o n se q u e n c e s is deemed to ha ve a w el l

- founded f earof pol i t i cal opi ni on- bas ed p e rs e c u t i o n . I

d. T he al i en bea r s the bur den of pr ovi ng e lig ib ility f

o r a s y lu m th ro u g h c re d ib le e v id e n c e . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (a ); B ut tv. G onz al es , 4 2 9 F

. 3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). In th is c a se , p a st p e rse c u tio n is n o t at iss u e . H u a n g ’s r ig h t to14 as y l um tur ns onl yupon w hethers he has a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on i n t he form of s t eri li zat i on i f s he r eturns t o C hi na. T o es t abl i s h a w el l

- founded fear of per s ecut i on, t he al i en m us tdemonstr at e, fi r s t , t hat t he al i en “ha s a fe arof per s ecut i on

. . . on acc ountof r ac e, r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a p arti cu lar so cial g rou p , o r p o li ti ca l o p inion ”; s ec o n d , that there i s a “r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y ” thatthe al i en w i l l s uffe rper s ecut i on bas ed on a pr ot ect ed gr ound i f r eturned t o hi s o r he r na t i ve co u n try ; and thir d , that the a li en “is u n ab le or u n w il li n g to return to, or av ail h im self o r h erse lf o f th e p rotec ti o n o f, th at co u n try b e c a u s e o f

s u c h f e a r.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 2 )( i)

. T h e c o u rt s h av e interp reted the term “w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar” t o incl ud e bo t h subject i ve and obj ect i ve aspe ct s: t he ali en m ust ent er t ai n a s ubj ect i ve appr ehens i on t hat per s ecut i on w i l l fol l ow re p a triatio n , an d th a t ap p re h e n sio n m u st b e o b jec tiv e ly re a s o n a b le in lig h t o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e a lie n ’s c a s e . Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’

y G en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. T he obj ect i ve componentof the ana l y s i s req ui r es the al i en t o s how t hata r eas onabl e per s on i n hi s pos i t i on w oul d fea rper s ecut i on, ei t herbeca us e he “ w oul d be i ndi vi dual ly singl ed outfor p e rse c u tio n ” o r b e c a u se “ th e re is a p a ttern o r p r a c ti c e in h is ho m e cou ntryof p e rse c u t i on ” againsta group of w hich he i s a m e m b e r. Id

. (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted); s ee al s o C am ar a v. A t t ’ y G en. , 580 F. 3d 196, 202 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( obs ervi ng thatthe obj ect i ve componentof the w el l

- founded fear anal y s i s r equi r es t he al i en t o demonstr at e that“a rea s onabl e per s on i n her ci r cumst ances w o u l d fea rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o hernat i ve c o u n tr y ” ).T he B I A ’ s s t andar ds of r eview d iffe rm arkedl yfr om t he 6 s t andar d t hatgoverns ourr evi ew of B I A d ec isi o ns . W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he gr antordeni al of m any forms of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef, 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) , and w hen revi ew i ng asy l um peti t i on s, ov er w hich w e d o p ossess ju ri s d ic tio n , i d. , w e m ayn o t r ev erse the B IA ’s discre ti o n ary act i ons unless they ar e “c ontr aryt o l aw and an a bus e of di s cr et i on. ” I

d. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( D ).

15 1. B I A ’s Standar ds of R evi ew i n A s yl um C as es U nd er 8 C

. F

. R

. § 10 03

. 1(d)( 3), t he B IA m ayno trever se a n IJ ’s f a c t u a l f in d in g s u n le s s th e ya re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . I d. § 1 0 0 3

. 1 (d)(3 )(i ). T h e IJ ’s lega l con clus ion s, h o w ev er, are s u b je c t to p le n a ry r e v ie w . I d. § 1 00 3. 1(d)( 3)( i i ). T he B IA al so h as p lena ryrev iew o v er the IJ’s ex e rc is e o f d iscreti o n ary a u th o ri ty. I

d. T h u s, q u esti o n s o f ju d g m en t, su ch a s a n IJ’s deci s i on t o gr ant as y l um , t o r eopen the r ecor d, ort o r econs i der a d ispo sit ion , rec eive n o d ef ere n ce fro m the B IA

. W h ethe r a 6 par t i cul ar det erm i nat i on by t he I J cons t i tut es a fi ndi ng of fa ctor a concl us i on of l aw i s s i gni fi cant becaus e thatchar act er i zat i on aff ect s t he l evel of def

er en ce t hatt he B I A m us tgi ve t o the d e te rm in a tio n . In th is a p p e a l, H u a n g a rg u e s th a t th e B IA d id n o t ap p ly the c o rrect st an d ard o f re v iew w h e n it rejec ted th e IJ’s concl us i on t hats he has a w ell -founde d fea rof per s ecut i on. H u a n g a ss e rts th a t th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r a n a lien h a s a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on i s a pur el yfac tual one and thatthe16 B IA m ay reve r s e an I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hatan al i en has s uch a f ear onl yi f t he fi ndi ng i s cl ear l yerr oneous . A ccor di ng t o H uang, t he B IA ’s rev ersa l d e p arted fro m the “ clea rl yerro n eo u s” stan d ard beca us e the r ecor d cont ai ns s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hats he pos s es s es a w el l

- founded fea rof s t er i l i zat i on. T h e gover nm entr es ponds byr el y i ng on In re A- S

- B- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 493, 49 8 (B

. I. A

. 2008) , i n w hi ch the B IA held that i texerci ses de novo r evi ew overthe q u est i on of w hether an al i en pos s es s es a w el l

- founded fea r of pe r s ecut i on b ec au se th at de term ination req u ir es sp ec u lat ion ab o u t fu ture ev en ts and ther efor e does notqual i fyas fac t
- fi ndi ng. H uang does notexpr es s l ychal l enge A- S

- B- , b u t, in a rg u in g th a t a w e llfounded f

ear of per s ecut i on pr es ent s a pure l yfac tual i s s ue, s he nonethel es s cal l s t hatdeci s i on i nt o ques t i on. T hus , w e begi n by cons i der i ng w heth er A- S

- B- i s cons i s t entw i t h t he s t andar ds of re v ie w d e s c ri b e d in § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )( 3 ).

a. V al i di ty of

A

- S- B

- i n the Asylum C ont ext I n A- S

- B- , the B IA h eld th at th e f o rec asti n g o f f

u ture events i n an as y l um cas e does notcons t i tut e fa ct
- fi ndi ng b e c a use predict i on s ar e i nh erent l yspeculat i ve an d itis “i m pos s i bl e t o decl ar e as ‘ fac t ’ t hi ngs t hathave noty et occurr ed. ” 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at498. T he B I A has ther efor e t aken t he p os i t i on t hatno defe r ence i s ow ed t o an I J ’ s concl us i on re g a rd in g th e risk th a t an e v e n t w ill tak e p lac e o n c e a n a lien is re p a tr ia te d

. I

d. ; s e e al s o I n r e H

- L- H

- & Z- Y

- Z- , 25 I

. & N

. D ec 209, 212 ( B

. I

. A

. 2010) ( “W e . . . r evi ew de novo the ques t i on w hethert he r es pondent has carr i ed herbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a w el l

- founded f

ear thatthe fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cyw i l l be17 enfor ced a gai ns therthr ough m eans cons t i tut i ng per s ecut i on u p o n h e r r e tu rn to C h in a .” ). I n Kap l u n v . At t o r n e

y Gen e r al , 6 0 2 F

. 3 d 2 6 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ) , we c o n s i d e r e d i n th e c o n t e x to f a CA T c l a i m w h e t h er A- S

- B- s etfor t h a val i d i nt erpr et at i on of t he s t andar ds of r evi ew requi red by§ 1 00 3. 1(d)( 3). T he B IA h ad, as i n asy l um cases, c o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e f

o r e c a s t i n g o f

f u tu r e e v e n t s i n th e CA T cont extdi d notcons t i tut e fa ct
- fi ndi ng beca use i ti nvol ved s p e c u l a tio n . S e e I

n r e V- K- , 2 4 I

. & N

. D e c . 5 0 0 , 5 0 1 ( B

. I

. A. 200 8 ) (“ A lthough pr edi ct i ons of futur e eve nt s m ayi n par tbe der i ved fr om “fa ct s , ” theyar e nott he s or tof “[ f] act s det erm i ned byt he I m m i grati o n Ju dge” thatcan onl ybe r evi ew ed forcl ear erro r. ” (q u o ti n g § 1 0 0 3

. 1 (d)(3 )))

. W e rej ect ed thatho l ding as a pl ai nl yerr oneous int erpr et at i on of § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) beca us e the p ro b a b ili tyo f

a n e v e n t o c c u rrin g in th e f u tu re e x is ts i ndepende nt l y of t he event i t s el f, and i s t her efor e a s epar at e and d is tin c t “ f

a c t” in th e re le v a n t le g a l s e n s e . Kapl un , 602 F. 3d at 269

. “ T h is lik e lih o o d , w h ile a n a ss e ss m e n t o f a f u tu re e v e n t, i s w hata dec i s i on- m aker i n an adj udi cat ory s y s t em deci des now as par tof a f

actual fr ame w o rk fordet erm i ni ng l egal eff ect
. ” I d. W e expl ai ned thatw hi l e the eve ntm ayoccuri n t he futur e, the p o s s ib ility o f

its o c c u rr in g e x is ts in t h e p re s e n t. T h u s , a det erm i nat i on byan IJ th atan eve ntm ayt ake pl ace w hen an al i en i s r epatr i at ed cons t i tut es a fi ndi ng of fa ctbeca us e the pr obabi l i t yi t s el f curr ent l yexi sts a n d gi ves r i s e t o a pr es ent a p p r e h e n s io n o f

th e e v e n t it r e p re s e n ts
. Id

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c lu d e d th a t, “ in s o f

a r a s th e B IA in te rp re t[ s ] 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 ) to h o ld th a t a n IJ’ s a ss e ss m e n t o f [ f u tu re e v e n ts] is nota fi ndi ng of fa ctbeca us e the eve nt s h ave noty etoccurr ed,18 . . . i t s i nt erpr et at i on p lai n lyerr s . ” Id

. ( ci t i ng A uerv. R obbi ns , 5 1 9 U .S . 4 5 2 , 4 6 1 (1 9 9 7 ))

. W e r es erved j udgm enti n Kapl un r egar di ng w hether A- S

- B- ’s h o ld in g m ig h t n o n e th e les s c o n tin u e to g o v e rn in as yl um c a se s. 6 0 2 F .3 d a t 2 6 9 n .7 (“ T o th e e x ten t th a t A- S

- B-

... ad d ress[ es] the stan d ard o f re v iew ap p lie d to an IJ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f

a ‘w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n ’ in t he as y l um cont ext
. . . , w e do not purpor t t o r es ol ve thati s s ue at th is t i m e. ”). W e no w con cl ud e, ho w ever, t hat, for essent i a lly the r eas ons expr es s ed i n Kapl un , A -S-B -’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 ) is p lain lye rro n e o u s. T h a t se c tio n a p p lies to b o th C A T and as y lum cas es , and, though ther e ar e i m por t ant d is tin c tio n s b e t w e e n th e tw o , s ee i nf r a not e 7, the pr oces s of forecast i ng futur e even t s i s a factual i nq uiryi n an asy l um case f o rth e s a me r e a s o n s i t i s i n a CA T c a s e . I n c o n s i d e r i n g a CA T cas e, the IJ m u s ti dent i fyw hatevent s ar e l i kel yt o occuraft er r epatr i at i on and, once thati s done, m us tdet erm i ne w hethert he a lien h a s d e m o n stra ted th a t w h a t h e is lik e ly to su f f e r a m o u n ts t o t or tur e. Si m i l ar l y , an as y l um cas e r equi r es t he I J t o det erm i ne w hatevent s have a r easonabl e pos s i bi l i t yof occ urr i ng, s o that th e re c a n b e a n a ss e ss m e n t o f w h e th e r a n a lien p o ss e ss e s a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on. W e ther efo re c oncl ude thatt he i nt erpr et at i on of § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) i n A- S

- B- c a n n o ts t a n d , a n d we h o ld th a t a n IJ’ s f

o re c a stin g o f

f u tu re e v e n ts c o n stitu tes f a c tfi n d ing thatt he B I A m us tr evi ew underthe cl ear l yerr oneous stan d ard

. H o w ev er, th at i s fa r fro m the e n d o f th e m att er.19 b. A nal

ys is of I J Asylum D ecis i ons T he as s essm en t o f futur e eve nt s i s onl yone partof the a n a ly si s o f a n a sy lu m c a se b a se d o n th e a ss e rtio n o f a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on. I n any as y l um cas e pr edi cat ed on t he fe ar of futur e per s ecut i on, an I J m us tans w ert hr ee e s s ent i al ques t i ons . Fi r s t , as j us tnot ed, the I J m us t as k w hatm ayhappen if th e a lie n re tu rn s to h is h o m e c o u n tr y . See I N S v. C a rd o z aFones ca , 480 U

. S. 421, 423 ( 1987) ( r efl ect i ng t hat as y l um pr ot ect s al i ens w ho s how thattheym aybe per s ecut ed i f t hey return ho m e). S econ d , the IJ m ustqu est i on w hethertho se e v e n ts m e e t th e le g a l d e f in itio n o f p e rs e c u tio n . See Shardarv. A sh c ro ft , 382 F. 3d 318, 324 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( r ej ect i ng an as y l um cl ai m beca us e the al i en fa il ed t o s how thatthe tr eatm enthe m igh t en co u n ter u p o n return ing h o m e q u ali fied as p erse cu ti o n ). T hir d, t he IJ m ustcon si der w hethert he p os sib ili t yof those event s occurr i ng gi ves r i s e t o a w el l

- founded fea r of per s ecut i on u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e a lie n ’s c a s e . See Espi nos aC or t ez , 607 F. 3d at108 ( s t at i ng that , t o es t abl i s h a w el l

- founded fea r , t he al i en mustpr ove t hat he has a s ubj ect i ve appr ehens i on o f h a rm a n d th a t h is f

e a r i s o b je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le ). A s w e s t at ed above, t he IJ ’ s ans w er t o t he fi r s tques t i on i s fac tual i n natur e and i s s ubj ect t o cl ear l y err oneous r evi ew by t he B IA

. T he an sw er t o the se c o n d qu est i on – w hethertho se event s m eett he l egal defi ni t i on of per s ecut i on – i s r evi ew ed de novo b e c a u s e it i s p l a i n ly an is s u e o f la w . C f. B oar d of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s: P ro c e d ural R eform s t o Im prove C ase M anage m ent , 67 Fed. R eg. 54, 878, 54, 8 9 0 ( A ug. 26, 2002) (“ T h e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e ter m in a tio n [ ] o f w h e th e r ... f

a c ts dem on strat e harm t hat ri ses t o the l evel of ‘per secut i on []’

. . . [i s]T h e tex t o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 )(i) & (ii) is a s f o llo w s: 7 (d ) P o w e rs o f

th e B o a rd [ o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ]–

... (3 ) S c o p e o f

re v ie w . ( i ) T h e Boa r d wi l l n o t e n g a g e i n d e n o v o r e v i e w of fi nd i n g s o f

f a c td e t e r mi n e d b ya n i mmi g r a t i o n j u dge. Fact s det erm i ned bythe i m m i gr at i on j udge, i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs as t o the cr edi bi l i t yof t est im ony , s hal l be r e v i e wed o n l yt o d e t e r mi n e whe t h e rt h e f i n d i n g s o f

t he im m ig ra tio n ju d g e a re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . ( i i ) T h e B oar d m ayr evi ew ques t i ons of l aw , di s cr et i on, and j udgm en t a nd al l ot heri s s ues i n appea l s fr om deci s i ons of i m m i gr at i on j udges de novo.

20 not
. . . l i m i t ed byt he ‘ cl ear l yerr oneous ’ s t andar d. ”)

. T he q u esti o n w e turn to h ere is w h at sta n d a rd o f re v iew the B IA sh o u ld ap p lyw h en a p arty ch all en g es the IJ’s a n sw er to the thir d ques t i on, w hethert he fa ct s s uppor ta w el l

- fou n d ed fearof per s ecut i on. T o addr es s thati s s ue, w e turn to the t extof § 1003. 1 (d)(3 ) an d to the A tt o rne yG en era l’ s g u idan ce reg ardi ng i m pl ement at i on of thatr egul at i on. See Lewis v. At l as V an 7 L ines, I nc. , 5 4 2 F. 3 d 4 0 3 , 4 0 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ W e b e g i n our an aly sis

... w ith the rule tha t ‘ [t]he b asic ten ets o f statuto ry cons t ruct i on appl yt o c o n s tru c t i on of r egul at i ons and ours t art i ng poi nton anyques t i on conce r ni ng the appl i cat i on of a r egul at i on i s i t s part i cul arw r i t t en t ext
. ’ ” ( quot i ng P a . Fed ’n o f Sp o rtsm en ’s C l ubs , I nc. v. Kem

pthor ne , 4 9 7 F

. 3 d 3 3 7 , 3 5 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ))) ; B ra g d o n v . A b b o tt , 5 2 4 U .S . 6 2 4 , 6 4 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) (“ [ T ]h e w e ll-21 re a so n ed v i ew s o f

th e a g e n c ies im p lem e n tin g a sta tu te c o n stitu te a b o d yo f

e x p e rie n c e a n d in f

o rm e d ju d g m e n t to w h ich c o u rts and l i t i gant s m aypr oper l yr es or t f o r gui dance

. ” ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n o m itte d ))

. S ec ti o n 1 0 0 3

. 1 (d)(3 ) pro v ides that IJ de cisi o n s tha t are p u r e l yf a c tu a l i n n a tu r e r e c e i v e c l e a re r r o rr e vi e w . 8 C. F

. R. § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i )

. A l l ot herdeci s i ons ar e r evi ew ed de novo

. I d. § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 )(ii). T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a s e x p la in e d th a t, u n d e r th is tw o -tier e d sy ste m , the h ig h lyd e f e re n tial c le a rly erron eo us r evi ew appl i es onl yt o the I J ’ s des cr i pt i on of the e v e n ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s th a t form t he fa ctua l bas i s forthe dec i s i on under r evi ew . T he ‘ cl ear l yerr oneous ’ s t andar d does not a p p lyto d e ter m in a ti o n s o f m a tters o f

law , n o r to t he ap pli cat i on of legal st and ards, i n the exerci se of j udgm entordi scret i on. T hi s i ncl udes j u d g m e n ta s t o w h e t h e rt h e f a c t s e s t a b l i s h e d b y a p arti cu lar ali en am o u n t t o “p ast p erse cu ti o n ” o r a
“ w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n .” Pr ocedur a l Re f

o rms t o I mpr ove C as e M anage m ent , 67 Fed. R eg. at54, 890. T he A t t or neyG ener al ’ s gui dance t hus s ugges t s t hat th e a n sw e r to th e th ird q u e stio n – w h e th e r th e f a c ts g iv e rise to a w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecut i on – i s s ubj ectt o de novo r evi ew beca us e i tr equi r es t he exe r ci s e of j udgm enti n the appl i cat i on of t he w el l

- founded f

ears t andar d t o the fa ct s of the al i en’ s cas e. I d. T h e f

a c tu a l-v e rsu s-le g a l d istin c tio n is le ss c lea r o n th is poi nt , how ever , beca us e the defi ni t i on of a w el l

- founded f earof22 p e rse c u tio n in c lu d e s ele m e n ts th a t a re b o th leg a l an d f a c tu a l in n a tu re . T he governm ent ’ s br i efi ng corr ect l yobs erves t hat j udgi ng t he obj ect i ve re as onabl enes s of t he al i en’ s fea ri nvol ves a “l egal s t andar d [] t hatm us tbe appl i ed t o t he i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , and [i s ] t hus r evi ew ed bythe B oar d de novo . ” ( G ov’ tSupp. B r . at2. ) I n essenc e, the governm ent acknow l edges t hatw hetheran al i en has a w el l

- founded f ear pr es ent s a mi xed ques t i on of fa ctand l aw . W e agr ee. A m i xed q u est i on of fa ctand l aw i s one thatr equi r es appl i cat i on of a le g a l s ta n d a r d to a p a rt ic u la r s e t o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See 9C C HARL ES A L AN W R I GH T & A RTHUR R. M I L L ER , F EDERAL P RAC TI C E AND P ROCEDURE § 2589, at47 3 (3d ed. 2008) ( char act er i zi ng m i xed ques t i ons as t hos e w hi ch “i nvol ve el ement s of both l aw and fa ct ”)

. T hat i s pr eci s el yt he natur e of th e w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r i n q u ir y . A n IJ revi ew i ng an assert i on of w el l -foun ded fear m ust det erm i ne w hethert he al i en has an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e fe ar of per s ecut i on bas ed on t he eve nt s thatm ayoccuri f he r eturns h o m e . See P ro c e d u ra l R e f o rm s to Im p ro v e C a se M a n a g e m e n t, 67 Fed. R eg. at54, 890 ( char act er i zi ng the w el l

- founded f ear i nqui r y as an anal y s i s r equi r i ng “the appl i cat i on of l egal sta n d a rd s” ); see al

so B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s : Pr ocedur al R eform s t o I m pr ove C as e M anage m ent, 67 Fed. R eg. 7309, 7315 ( Feb. 19, 2002) ( des cr i bi n g , in a propos ed ver s i on of § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) , t hatt he r egul at i on w as “not [desi gned t o] pr ecl ude the B oar d fr om r evi ew i ng m i xed ques t i ons of l aw and fac t, i ncl udi ng, w i t houtl i m i t at i on, w hetheran al i en has es t abl i s hed a w el l -fo u n d ed fearof per s ecut i on”)

. T he fa ctualT her e i s an i m por t antdi ffe r ence betw een this k ind of 8 anal y s i s and the one thatw e s etfor t h i n Kapl un for C A T cl ai m s. T he C A T r equi r es an al i en t o p rov e that i ti s m or e l i kel yt han n o t h e w ill b e to rt u re d if h e is re p a tr ia te d

. G om ez - Zul uaga , 527 F. 3d at 349. T hus , an IJ m ay aw ar d r el i ef under t he C A T i f the I J , fi r s t , i dent i fi es w hat m ayoccurw hen the al i en r eturns hom e, se c o n d , atta c h e s a p ro b a b ili tyo f m o re th a n 5 0 % to th a t ev e n t, and, t hi r d, det erm i nes t hatt he pr obabl e eve ntquali fi es as t or tur e. I n an as y l um cas e, how ever , “w el l

- founded fea r ” turns noton an as s es s m ent of w hat i s m or e l i kel yt han notbuton w hat i s “pos s i bl e, ” and th en on w hethert he al i en’ s fea rof that p o s s ib ility is re a s o n a b le

. See Espi nos a- C or t ez , 607 F. 3d at108 (“T o sati sfythe o b

jecti v e p ron g [o f the w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar test] , t h e p e t i t i o n e rm u s ts h o w th a ta r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n i n th e a l i e n 's circu m stan ce s w o u ld f

ea r p erse cu ti o n if return ed to the co u n try in qu esti o n . ” (i n terna l q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted)). Fundam ent al t o t he i nqui r yi s a fa ctual det erm i nat i on r egar di ng w h e th e r th e e v e n t th e a lien a lleg e d lyf e a rs f a lls w ith in th e re a lm of the pos s i bl e, butan equa l l yfundament al componento f t he 23 par tof the i nqui r yr equ ir es the I J t o eval uat e w hatm ayoccur w hen the al i en i s r epatr i at ed, i ncl udi ng w hetherther e has been a patt ern or pr act i ce i n t he al i en’ s hom e count r yof t ar get i ng for persecut i on a st atutor i l yprot ect ed g roup o f w hich t he al i en is a m emberorw hetherhe w i l l be i ndi vi dual l yt ar get ed bas ed on a pr ot ect ed cha r act er i s t ic. T h e l egal par tof the i nqui r yr equi r es t he I J t o appl yt he objec ti v e r eas onabl enes s s t andar d and det erm i ne w hethert he pr edi ct ed eve nt s ( and patt ern orpr act i ce, if ap p li ca b le) w o u ld cau se a r ea so n ab le p erso n in th e a lie n ’s situ a tio n to f

e a r p e rse c u tio n . T h a t leg a l p iec e o f th e a n a ly sis 8anal y s i s r equi r es a j udgm entaboutw h ethert he pos s i bl e eve nt actual l ygi ves r i s e t o a r ea so n ab le fea r . I n t erm s of the “pos s i bi l i t y , ” the Supr eme C ourthas no ted t hat“[o] ne ca n cert ai nl yhave a w el l

- founded f earof an e venthappeni ng w hen th e re is le s s th a n a 5 0 % c h a n c e o f th e o c c u rr e n c e ta k in g p la c e .” C ar doz a- Fons eca , 4 8 0 U .S

. a t 4 3 1

. A n IJ m a y f in d a n e v e n t to be r eas onabl ypos s i bl e and c oncl ude t hat an al i en w oul d have a w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecut i on bas ed on it

. T he B I A m ay rev iew that d ec isi o n , an d co n clud e, w ith o u t r ejec ti n g the IJ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g re g a rd in g th e p o ss ib ili tyo f th e e v e n t, th a t, i n its j udgm ent , t he pos s i bi l i t yof the eve ntdoes n otgi ve r i s e t o an obj ect i vel yrea so n ab le fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n . S u ch a d eterm inat i on d o es n o t reject the IJ’s fa ctua l fin d ing that the e v en t m ayo cc u r; it m e re lyc o n s ti tu te s a ju d g m e n t b yth e B IA th a t th e e v e n t, th o u g h p o ss ib le, d o e s n o t g iv e rise to a n o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le fea r . T hatexer ci s e is pr oper l yper form ed us i ng a de novo s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w. 24 properl yrecei ves de novo r e v i e w f r o m t he BI A. 8 C. F

. R. § 1 0 0 3

. 1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( i i ) ( “ T h e Bo a r d ma y r e v i e w q u e s t i o n s o f l a w, d is c re tio n , ju d g m e n t a n d a ll o th e r i s s u e s ... de novo .” ). T r eat i ng t he re as onabl enes s of an al i en’ s fea r as a mi xed q u e stio n o f

f a c t an d law is in k e e p in g w ith h o w a p p e llate tr ib u n a ls typ ic a lly tre a t is s u e s o f o b je c tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s . See 9 C W R I GH T & M I L L ER , § 2 58 9, at47 3-74 (“[T ]her e is s ubs t ant i al author i t ythat

. . . det erm i nat i on [of mi xed ques t i ons of f actand l aw ] i s not w i t hin t he am bit of the ‘ cl earl yerr on eou s’ rul e and theyar e fr eel yr evi ew abl e . . . . ”)

. Forexampl e, i n the cont extof qual i fied i m m uni t yforcons t i tut i onal t or t s , the25 r ea sonabl enes s of a s t at e ac t or ’ s conductbas ed on undi s put ed fac t s i s su bj ectt o de novo re v ie w a s a q u e s tio n o f la w . See C ur l ey v . K l em , 2 9 8 F. 3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c o n c l u d i ng t hatt he r eas onabl enes s of a s t at e ac t or ’ s con d u ct m us tbe deci ded by t he cour t )

. Si m i l ar l y , w hen i nt erpr et i ng ambi guous c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s , c o u r t s a s k a s a ma t t e ro f l a w h o w a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld re a d th e te rm a t is s u e . See M B IA Ins. C or p. v. R oyal

I ndem

. C o. , 426 F. 3d 2 0 4 , 210 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (“ W h e th e r a c o n tra c t is a m b ig u o u s is d e ter m in e d a c c o rd in g to an obj ect i ve, r eas onabl e- per s on s t andar d and i s a ques t ion of law .”). A lso, w h en ruli n g o n a f ed era l cri m inal d ef

en d an t’ s cl ai m for i neff

ect i ve ass i s t ance of counse l , cour t s det erm i ne as a mi xed ques t i on of fa ctand law w h et hert he conduc tof the p e tit io n e r’s trial co u n se l c o m p o rte d w ith th a t o f a n o b jec tiv e ly re a s o n a b le a tto rn e y . See U nited St ates v. C ross , 308 F. 3d 308, 3 1 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s t a t i n g th a ti n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i ms chal l engi ng t he val i di t yof a f eder al s ent ence “pr es entm i xed ques t i ons of l aw and fa ct ” s ubj ectt o de novo re v iew ). E v e n in n eg li g en ce ca ses, w h er e q u esti o n s o f re aso n ab lene ss are su b m itt e d to ju rie s a n d re v iew e d f o r c le a r e rro r o n a p p e a l, Trav el ers I

ndem

. C o. v. E w i ng, C ol e, E r dm an & Eubank , 711 F. 2d 14, 17 ( 3d C i r . 1983) , fede r al cour t s have r ecogni zed that a n a ly z in g c a se s in th a t w a y “ is a n e x c e p tio n to th e g e n e ra l ru le t hatm i xed ques t i ons of l aw and fa ctar e r evi ew ed de novo .” E xxon Co. v. Sof

ec, I nc. , 5 4 F

. 3 d 5 7 0 , 5 7 6 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). T hats t andar d of re vi ew i s , m or eover , cons i s t entw i t h the A tt o rne yG en era l’ s ex p resse d g o al i n p rom u lgating the B IA ’s tw o -tier lev e l o f re v iew , n a m e ly , to b rin g n a tio n a l u n if o rm ityto i m m i gr at i on l aw byal l ow i ng the B I A “t o cons i derand r es ol ve i ns t ance s w her e ‘ di ffe r i ng deci s i ons m aybe r eac hed bas ed on26 essen t i al l yi dent i cal fac t s . ’ ” Pr ocedur al R eform s t o I m pr ove C as e M anage m ent , 67 Fed. R eg. at 54, 890 (quot i ng In re B ur bi no , 20 I

. & N

. D ec. 872, 873 ( B

. I

. A

. 1994) )

. M anyal i ens fl ee thei r hom e count r i es under very s i m i l arci r cumst ance s t hat s houl d, i n fai r nes s , l ead to s i m i l arout comes i n t hei ras y l um pet i t i ons . I f a de t erm i nat i on r egar di ng an al i en’ s w el l

- founded f e a r w e re re v iew e d o n ly u n d e r th e c lea rlye rro n e o u s s tan d a rd , it w ou l d b e diffi cultt o co nfron tt he p ro b lem of m ult i ple I Js r evi ew i ng s ubs t ant i vel ys i m i l aras y l um pet i t i ons b u tr eac hi ng d if f e re n t c o n c lu sio n s a b o u t w h e th e r a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld have a w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecut i on. T he B I A w oul d be p o w erless to c o rrect th e d ispa ri ty , ev en w h en the p eti ti o n s w ere i dent i cal i n al l m eani ngful r es pect s . T he B I A has r ecogni zed t hatpr event i ng t hi s t ype of di s cor d among I J deci s i ons i s one of i t s m aj or i nst i tuti on al go al s, and on e t hat requi res i tt o ex erci se de novo r evi ew overhow r eas onabl e peopl e w oul d r es pond t o a p a rt ic u la r s e t o f

f a c ts
. B ur bi no , 20 I

. & N

. D ec. at873- 74 ( “The a d v a n tag e o f

a n in d e p e n d e n t sta n d a rd o f re v iew is th a t it pr om ot es uni form i t yi n the appl i cat i o n of the var i ous dis cret i on aryprovis i on s of t he [IN A ]”) ; se e als o In re C r am m ond , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. 9, 15 ( B

. I

. A

. ) ( “I m port antpol i cy c o nsi derat i on s favo r appl y i ng a un i form fede ral st and ard in a d ju d ic a tin g re m o v a b ility

. . . u n d e r t h e A c t.” ), vacated on other gr ounds by 2 3 I. & N . D e c . 1 7 9 (B .I.A . 2 0 0 1 ). C h a ra c ter izin g o b

jec tiv e re a so n a b le n e ss in th is w a yis al s o cons i s t entw i t h ourpr ece dent

. W e have r ecogni zed thatt he B IA exerci ses de novo re v iew o v e r “ th e d e te r m in a tio n a s to w hethercert ai n fac t s gi ve r i s e t o a w el l

- foun ded fe arof per s ecut i on. ” Sher i

f f v. A t t ’ y G en. , 5 8 7 F

. 3 d 5 8 4 , 5 9 2 (3d C ir

. 2009)

. T he w el l

- founded feari nqui r ydepends heavi l yuponC o u rts o f A p p e a l h a v e re c o g n ize d a v a rie tyo f situ a tio n s in 9 w hi ch admi ni s t r at i v e ag enci es – byvi r tue of thei rpar t i cul ar expert i s e and Congre s s i onal m andat e – poss es s gr eat erl at i tude in a d d re ss in g m ix e d q u e stio n s o f f a c t a n d law th a n d o a p p e llate c o u rt s w h e n re v ie w in g a d m in is tr a tiv e d is p o s itio n s . See Li on Uni f o r m, I n c . , J a n e s v i l l e Ap

p a r e lDi v . v . NLRB , 905 F. 3d 120, 1 2 3 -2 4 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (fin d in g th a t a n a g e n c y c o u ld p ro p e rly revi ew an adm i nis t rat i ve l aw j ud ge’s aw ard of att orneyfees de novo , even t hough t he s ame i s s ue w as r evi ew ed by t he cour tof appea l s f ors ubs t ant i al evi dence , beca us e the tw o t ypes of appe al w er e des i gned to acc om pl i s h di ffe r entfunct i ons : w her eas the admi ni s t r at i ve appe al w as des i gned t o r enderdi s pos i t i on on b eh alf of the ag en cy , jud ici al rev iew w as crea ted o n lyto en su re th a t th e a g e n c y ’s d e c isio n w a s ro o ted in th e re c o rd ); com par e 24 C

. F. R

. § 26. 52( k) ( pr ovi di ng thatt he Secr et ary of H ous i ng and U rb an D evel opm ent , w hen r evi ew i ng deci s i ons i s s ued byan admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge ( “A L J ”) , m ay“af fi r m , m odi fy , r educe , r ever s e, compromi s e, r emand, ors ett l e anyr el i ef” gr ant ed bythe A L J ), w i th W

hi t e v. U

. S. D ep’ tof

H ous . & U r ban D ev. , 475 F. 3d 8 9 8 , 9 0 4 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (i n d icati n g that the S ec retary ’s det erm i nat i on r ece i ves “def er ent i al [] r evi ew ” fr om t he courtof 27 appl y i ng a l egal s t andar d t o t he fac tual i s s ues o f a p art i cul ar al i en’ s cas e, and w e have s t at ed thatt he B I A ’ s di s pos i t i on of the i nqui r y“‘ m us tbe uphel d i f i ti s su p p or t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d. ’ ” Es pi nos a- C or t ez , 607 F. 3d at107 ( quot i ng G om ez - Zul uaga , 527 F. 3d at 340)

. T hus , t he B I A has gr eat erl at i tude i n r evi ew i ng an I J ’ s deci si on on w el l

- founded fe ar tha n d o w e w h en rev iew ing the d ispo sit ion o f th e B IA i t s el f. C om

pa re P ro c edu ral R eform s t o Im prove C ase 9a p p e a ls a n d w ill b e “ re v e rse [ d ] o n ly if th e d e ter m in a tio n is l eg a l l yo rp r ocedur al l yuns ound, ori s uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e ” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n o m itte d )); com par e 5 U. S

. C. § 557( b) ( s t at i ng t hat , w hen an A L J render s a dec i s i on, t he agenc y w ho has j ur i s di ct i on overt hatrul i ng m ayr evi ew t hat d e c isio n u sin g “ a ll o f

th e p o w e r w h ich it w o u ld h a v e [ ,]” h a d it m a d e t h e d e c is io n in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e ), w ith i d. § 706( 2) ( pr ovi ng t hata cour tr evi ew i ng an age ncy ’ s fi nal det erm i nat i on m ayr ever s e onl y , among ot her t hi ngs , for a l ack of s ubs t ant i al evi dence or i f t he age ncyact ed i n an arbi t r arym annerorabus ed it s d iscreti o n ). 28 M anag em ent, 67 F ed. R eg. at 54 , 89 0 (“Th e ‘cl earl yerr on eou s’ st and ard do es no tapp l y. . . t o the app l i cat i on of legal st and ards,

. . . i ncl ud[i ng] j udgm ent s as t o w hether t he fa ct s es t abl i s hed by a p arti cu lar ali en am o u n t t o . . . a ‘w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rs e c u tio n .’” ), w ith K i bi nda v. A t t ’ y G en. , 477 F. 3d 113, 118- 19 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( s t at i ng t hat the admi ni s t r at i ve det erm i nat i on re g a rd in g a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n m u st b e u p h e ld unl es s “the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a cont r aryconcl us i on, b u t com p e ls it” (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted)). I t i s the ref o re a p p r o p r i a t e f

o rt h e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l t o g r a n tth e BI A de novo r evi ew o vert he “obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s ” componentof the w el l

- fo u n ded fe ari nqui r y , even though w e gr antgr eat er defe r ence t o t he B I A ’ s di s pos i t i on of thatques t i on on a pet i t i on f o r r e v ie w . In su m , ev a lu a tin g w h e th e r a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld fea rper s ecut i on undera par t i cul ar s et of ci r cumst ance s r equi r es t he exe r ci s e of l egal j udgm ent in a ppl y i ng a s t andar d of29 obj ect i ve r eas onabl eness to the fa ct s of an a l i en’ s par t i cul ar cas e. T he r es ul t i ng det erm i nat i on i s one overw hi ch the B I A has pl enaryr evi ew . 8 C

. F. R

. § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i i )

. O f cour s e, par tof t he w el l

- founded f

eardet erm i nat i on m aydepend on di s put ed fac t s , w hi ch m us t be r es ol ved byt he I J , w hos e dec i s i ons i n that reg ard are su b

ject t o c le a rl yerro n eo u s rev iew

. O n ce the IJ re so lv e s f

a c tu a l issu e s, th o u g h , as se ss in g h o w a re a so n a b le per s on w oul d r es pond t o t hos e fac t s i s a ques t i on of l aw , and the B I A i s w i t hi n i t s author i t yt o r evi ew t hat as s es s m entundera de novo s t andar d. H ow ever , w h en the B I A r eac hes a di ffe r entconcl us i on t han the I J , ei t heron t he fa ct s orthe l aw , i t s r evi ew m us tr efl ect a meani ng ful cons i der at i on of the r ecor d as a w hol e. I ti s not enough fort he B I A t o s el ect a few fac t s and s t at e that , bas ed on th e m , it d is a g re e s w ith th e IJ ’s c o n c lu s io n . C f. Sh e riff , 587 F. 3d a t 5 9 5 (f a u lti n g B IA f

o r n e g lec tin g to c o n sid e r se v e ra l f a c ts cruci al t o t he pet i t i oner ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on, i ncl udi ng t he fa ct t hatgovernm entfor ces i n hernat i ve countr yhad des t r oy ed her hom e, m u rder ed herm other , and r aped he rdaught eri n her p r e se n c e ). In ste a d , the B IA m u st d e sc rib e its re a so n in g w ith e n o u g h sp e c if

icityto in f

o rm th e p a rties a n d u s w h y it rea c h e d its c o n c lu s io n . S e e A w o les i v. A sh c ro ft , 3 4 1 F

. 3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ In o rd e r f

o r u s to b e a b le to g iv e m e a n in g f u l re v iew to th e B IA ’s d e c is io n , w e m u st h a v e so m e in sig h t in to its rea s o n in g . ”). T h e B IA m u st sho w that itrev iew ed the re co rd a n d c o n sid e re d th e e v id e n c e u p o n w h ich th e IJ r e lied , an d it m us texpl ai n w hyt he r ecor d w arr ant s a di ffe r entconcl us i on t han the one r eac hed byt he I J

. I n an as y l um cas e, t hi s m eans t ha t t he BI A mus t e xa mi ne t he r e c or d of t he pe t i t i on e r’ s case30 a n d e x p lain w h y , b a se d o n th a t re c o rd , an o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le a l i e n w o u l d n o t f

e a r p e r s e c u t i o n i f

r e tu r n e d t o h i s h o m e c o u n t r y. 2

. The Mer i t

s of H uang’s A s

yl um P et i t i on W h ile th e B IA w a s f

re e to d isa g re e w ith th e IJ a s to w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t H u a n g h a d a n o b jec tio n a b ly r eas onabl e w el l

- founded fea r , i t coul d onl y do s o if, as n ot ed above, i tc o n s i d e r e d t h e r e c o r d a s a who l e . Unf o r tu n a t e l y , the B IA ’s opi ni on does not r efl ect t hat t ype of cons i der at i on. In gr ant i n g asy lum , t he I J r el i ed on the 2007 St at e D epart m ent l et t er . T hatl et t eri ndi cat es thatU

. S. offi ci al s know of no pol i cy att he n ati o nal orpr ovi nci al l evel that“mandat [es ] the ste riliz a tio n o f

o n e p a rtn e r o f

c o u p les th a t h a v e g iv e n b irth to t w o chi l dr en[, ] ” and t hat , t o t he ext entan unw r i t t en pr act i ce of s t eril izat i on exi s t s , C hi nes e ci t i zens m aybe abl e t o avoi d i tby e ith e r p a y in g so c ial c o m p e n sa tio n f e e s o r b yc h o o si n g n o t to re g is te r t h e irc h i l d r e n a s m e m b e rs o f th e irh o u s e h o ld . (I

d. at 1353. ) H ow ever , t he l ett ers ay s not hi ng aboutw hetherl ocal fami l y - pl anni ng pol i ci es r equi r e steri l i zat i on, and H uang s ub mi t t e d a 20 03 a dmi ni s t r a t i ve de c i s i on i s s ue d b y t he FD FPA t hatc o n t r a d i c t s wha twas s a i d i n t h e 2 0 0 7 St a t e Dep a r t me nt l et t er . A ccor di ng t o t hatdeci s i on, a chi l d bor n out s i de of Chi na t o C hi nes e par ent s w ho do nothave perm anent r es i dencyi n the chi l d’ s countr yof bi r th “s hal l be tr eat ed as a C hi nes e nat i onal and ci t i zen f

or. . . dom es t i c admi ni s t r at i ve purpos es , ” i ncl udi ng en fo rce m en t o f F u

ji an fa m il y -plan n ing reg u lat ion s . ( I d. at 1 8 9 5 .) E v e n th e 2 0 0 7 S tate D e p a rtm e n t lett e r s ta tes th a t, “[a ] l t hough C hi n e s e o f

f i ci al s as s ertthatnat i onal l aw s and pol i cy and pr ovi nci al r egul at i ons do no perm i tfor ced a bor t i ons or s t er i l i zat i ons , t her e i s evi dence t hat t hey have t aken pl ace . ” (I d. )31 T h e re is a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e f ro m th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t to corr obor at e thatfi ndi ng. Forexampl e, acc or di ng t he 2007 A s y l um Pr o f

i l e , t h e St a t e Dep a r t me n th a d r e c e i v e d r e p o r t s of compul s or ys t er i l i zat i ons i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce as r ece nt l yas 2006. T he 2006 C ount r yR epor tcon fi r m s that , as of 2006, r epor t s of for ced s t eri li zat i ons i n der ogat i on of the nat i onal pol i cy c o n tin u e d to e m a n a te f ro m F u j i a n P ro v in c e . I n Fuj i an and el s ew her e, acc or di ng t o the r epor t , pare nt s of tw o chi l dr en co m m o n ly fa ce d ex tr em e psy ch o log ical an d ec o n o m ic pre ssu re t o be s t er i l i zed, “s om et i m e s [ l e a v i n g ] wome n w i t h l i t t l e pr act i cal ch o ice b u t t o u n d erg o ab o rt ion o r st eril izati o n . ” (R

. at 96 6

. ) Y ett he B I A di s cus s ed none of thatevi dence , i ns t ead dev oti ng i t s an a ly si s t o ex plai ning w hyt he lack of an exp res s s t er i l i z a t i o n p o l i c y , Hua n g ’ s l ack of i ndi vi dual i zed e vi dence , her i n- l aw s ’ l et t er, an d t he af fi davi tfr om t he C hi nes e ci t i zen w ho father ed tw o chi l dr en i n J apan w er e i ns uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h an o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n . T h e B IA sim p ly fai l ed t o ad d ress anyevi dence that , i f cr edi t ed, w oul d l end s uppor tt o H uang’ s as s erted fearof s t er i l i zat i on, and thus the decis i on do es not r efl ecta con si derat i on of the recor d as a w ho l e. W hil e w e are no t sugg est i ng t hat t he B IA m ustdis cuss e v e ryp iec e o f

e v id e n c e m e n tio n e d b ya n a sy lu m a p p lica n t, i t m a yn o t ig n o re e v id e n c e f a v o ra b le to th e a lien , p a r ticu lar ly w hen, as her e, t he al i en’ s admi ni s t r at i ve br i ef expr es s l y cal l s t he B IA ’s a tte n tio n to it. See Espi nos a- C or t ez , 607 F. 3d at107 ( “[T] he B I A is n o t p erm i t t ed s i m pl yt o i gnor e orm i s cons t rue e v id e n c e in th e a s y lu m a p p lic a n t’ s f a v o r.” ). T he B I A ’s a nal y s i s does l i t t l e more than che r r y - pi ck a fe w p iece s o f e v iden ce , stat e w h y that ev iden ce d o es n o t sup p o rtH uang cl ai m s t hat t he B I A err ed i n deny i ng herr eques tfor 10 w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, fo r th e sa m e re a so n s th a t s h e a p p e a ls its as y l um di s pos i t i on. T he s ubs t ant i ve el ement s foro b ta i ni ng w i t hhol di ng are t he s ame as foras y l um , exce ptthatthe al i en m u s tp r o v e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e , r a t h e rb y a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y , t hathe w i l l be per s ecut ed bas ed on a s ta t u t o ri ly p ro te c te d g ro u n d if h e is re p a tr ia te d

. Lukw ago v. A shcroft , 3 2 9 F

. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 8 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). B ec au se th e B IA per form ed an i nadequa t e as y l um anal y s i s and di d not in d e p e n d e n tlya ss e ss H u a n g ’s r ig h t to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, w e ca nnotm eani ngful l yaddr es s wi th hol di ng of r emoval bey ond w h a t is p e rtin e n t f

ro m o u r an a ly sis o f th e a sy lu m c laim . W e w ill t her efor e r emand H u an g’ s w i t hhol di ng cl ai m forfur t her cons i der at i on i n l i ghtof thi s opi ni on. 32 a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n , an d co n clud e tha t H u an g ’s as y l um p eti ti on t her efor e l acks m er i t
. T hati s s el ect i ve r ather th a n p le n a ry re v ie w . “ P le n a ry” m e a n s “ f u ll; c o m p le te ; e n tir e ,” B L ACK ’ S L AW D I CTI ONARY ( 9th ed. 2009) , and w i t h t he pow er to c o n d u c t p len a ry re v iew g o e s th e re sp o n sib ili ty to c o n d u c t it

. T h e B IA m u st pr o v id e su f f icie n t a n a ly sis to d e m o n stra te th a t it has t rul yper form ed a f ul l r evi ew of the r ecor d , incl udi ng the e v i d e n c e t h a tma ys u p p o r tth e a l i e n’ s a s y l u m c l a i m. See 10 Touss ai ntv. A t t ’

y G en. , 455 F. 3d 409, 414 ( 3d C i r. 2006) (re q u irin g th e B IA to p e rf o rm a n a n a ly sis o f su f

f icie n t d e p th to perm i tm eaningfu l app el l at e revi ew of it s r easoning). B ecause t he B I A ’ s d eci s i on does noti ndi cat e thats uch a r evi ew t ook p l a c e i n Hu a n g ’ s c a s e , we wi l l g r a n tt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, vaca t e the fi nal or derof r emoval ent er ed byt he B I A , and re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .T h e B IA , of cour s e, i s notpr event ed fr om openi ng ot her 11 aven ues of

i nq uiry , i f i tcho oses t o rem and the case to the IJ.

33 W e no t e on e f

in a l co ncern w i t h respectt o the m eri t s. T h e w a yth a t th e B IA a p p ro a c h e d its a n a ly sis

— se lec tin g o n ly t hos e pi ece s o f evi dence t hatcas tdoubton the l i kel i hood of H uang’ s bei ng s t er i l i zed— s ugges t s t hatt he B I A w as conce r ned w i t h w hether H uang had demonstr at ed thatfor ced s t er i l i zat i on is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t to o c c u r i f sh e is rep a triate d , w h e n it shou l d inst ead h ave b een assessin g w hethert here w as a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof for ced s t er i l i zat i on and w h etherher fe ar w as o b

jecti v elyrea so n ab le, an d thu s w ell f o u n d ed

. In C ar doz a- Fons eca , t he Supr eme Court , caut i oni ng t hat t he fact t hat the fe arm us tbe “w el l

- founded” does not“tr ans form the s t andar d i nt o a ‘ m or e l i kel ythan not ’ one, ” ci t ed the exa m pl e of w el l

- founded f

eargi ven bya “l eadi ng author i t y ”: L etus . . . pr es um e thati ti s k n o w n thati n the a p p lica n t’s c o u n tryo f o r ig in e v e ryten th a d u lt ma l e p e r s o n i s e i t h e r p u t t o d e a t h o rs e n tt o s o me r emot e l abor camp. . . . I n s uch a cas e i t w oul d be onl yt oo appar entt hat any one w ho has m anage d t o esc ape fr om the countr yi n ques t i on w i l l have

“ w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f b e in g p e rse c u ted ” u p o n h is eventual r etur n. 480 U

. S. at431 ( quot i ng 1 A

. G rah l- M adsen, T he St atus of R efuge es i n I nt ernat i onal L aw 180 ( 1966) )

. T he B I A s houl d be m i ndful of thi s di s t i nct i on i n cons i der i ng t he evi dence anew on r emand. 1134 B

. Mot i on t o R em and H u a n g a ls o a rg u e s th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n in deny i ng herm ot i on t o r emand forcons i der at i on of hernew evi dence

. T he B I A t r eat s a mot i on t o r emand forthe purpos e of s ubm i t t i ng addi t i onal ev i dence i n the s ame m anneras m ot i ons to re o p e n th e re c o rd

. See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(4 ); I n r e C oelho , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . 4 6 4 , 4 7 1 (B .I.A . 1 9 9 2 ) ( “ [ W ]h e re a m o tio n to r emand i s r eal l yi n t he natur e of a m ot i on t o r eopen ora mot i on to re c o n sid e r, itm u st c o m p lyw ith th e su b sta n tiv e re q u ire m e n ts for su ch m o t i ons . ”)

. T he al i en musts how thatthe “e vi dence so u g h t to b e o f

f e re d is m a ter ial an 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

. § 1003. 2( c) ( 1)

. T he B I A m aydenya mot i on t o r eopen i f i tde t e r mi ne s t h a t“ ( 1 ) t h e a l i e n h a s n o te s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma fac i e cas e for t he r el i ef s ought ; ( 2) the al i en ‘ has noti ntr oduced pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, m at er i al evi dence ’ ; or ( 3) i n the ca s e of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef ( s uch as as y l um ) , the a li en w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef e ven i f the mot i on w as gr ant ed. ” C aus hiv. A t t ’ y G en. , 436 F

. 3 d 2 2 0 , 231 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng I N S v. A budu , 4 8 5 U .S

. 9 4 , 1 0 4 -0 5 (1 9 8 8 )). T o e sta b lish a p rim a f a c ie c a se f o r a sy lu m , th e a lien m u st p ro d u c e o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e th a t, w hen con si dered t og et her w i t h t he evidence of recor d, show s a rea so n ab le li k eli h o o d that h e i s en ti tl ed to r e lie f

. G uo v. A shcroft , 3 8 6 F

. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 3 & n . 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e B IA

“ m u st a c tu a lly c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e a n d a rg u m e n t th a t a p a rty p re s e n ts ” a n d m a y n o t su m m a ri ly d is m is s th e m o tio n . Zheng v. A t t ’ y G en. , 549 F. 3d 260, 266 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng A bdul ai v . A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) )

. W e r evi ew the deni al o f a mot i on t o r emand ort o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on, and “w i l l uphol d thatdet erm i nat i on i f i ti s ‘ s uppor t ed35 b yrea so n ab le, su b stan ti al, an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd cons i der ed as a w hol e. ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ))

. H uang see ks r emand for t he IJ t o cons i der t he fol l ow i ng n e w e v id e n c e : ( 1) C hi nes e pas s por t s and t r avel docum en ts fo r her tw o c h ild re n . (2) F am il y -plan n ing p rop ag an d a, i n clud ing p o s ters a n d a 2 0 0 6 d e sk -c a len d a r iss u e d b y a u th o rities in L a n g Q i , F u

j i a n P r o v i n c e , d e s c r i b i n g f a m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es , none of w h i ch s t at e that s te ri liz a tio n is m a n d a to ry a f te r t w o b ir th s . ( 3 ) A r ep o r tf

r o m D HS f

o l l o wi n g a n i n v e s t i g a t i ve o f f icer ’s a ttem p ts to a u th e n tica te c e rta in d o c u m e n ts d e sc rib in g b irth c o n tr o l p o lice s in Fuj i an Pr ovince. T he r epor ti dent i fi es t he fol l ow i ng document s as authent i c: ( 3a ) Tw o d ocument s i s s ue d b ythe FD FPA dat ed J anuary17, 2007, i ndi cat i ng t hatthe for ei gn- bor n chil dr en of Chi nes e ci t i zens ar e not count ed underthe fa m i l y - pl anni ng pol i cyunl es s t heyar e r egi st er ed as p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n ts o f

C h in a .36 ( 3b) A pr i nt outfr om t he w eb sit e of the N at i onal Fam i l yPl anni ng C om m i s s i on, st at i ng t hat “R eturned O verseas C hinese ar e notal l ow ed t o have ano t herchi l d, p ro v id e d th a t th e yh a v e a lre a d yg iv e n b irth t o t w o orm or e chi l dr en abr oad. ” (3 c ) T w o a d m in istra tiv e d e c isio n s is su e d in 2 0 0 3 b y th e F D F P A a n d th e C h a n g le C ity F am i l yP l ann i ng , w hich st at e t hat C hinese ci t i zens w ho gi ve bi r t h abr oad w i l l be s ubj ect t o enfor cementof fa m i l y - pl anni ng regul at i on s onc e t heyreturn ho m e un l ess t heyqual i fi ed as perm an entr es i dent s of the n ati o n in w h ich th eir ch il d ren w ere b o rn a t th e tim e th e b ir th o c c u rr e d

. ( 3d) T he J ul y1999 pos t erdes cr i bi ng bi r t hc o n tr o l p o lic ie s in C h a n g le C ity. ( 4) A n aff

i davi tdat ed N ovember15, 2007 fr om H uang’s m other

- i n- l aw , L i Pi ng Y e, s t at i ng that bi r t h contr ol author i t i es i nform ed hert hatH uang w i l l be r equi r ed t o under go a s t er i l i zat i on p ro c e d u re if

s h e re tu rn s to F u z h o u . ( 5) A documentp u rpo r t i ng t o be an of fi ci al cert i fi cat i on i s s ued byFuzhou fami l y - pl anni ng37 author i t i es i ndi cat i ng t hatH uang w i l l be s t er i l i zed if s h e re tu rn s to F u z h o u . ( 6 ) A s t a t e me n td a t e d Se p t e mbe r2 , 2 0 0 4 , f r o m t he Fuj i an For ei gn A ffa i r s O ffi ce i n r es pons e t o a U

. S. St at e D epart m enti nqui r yi ndi cat i ng t hat F u jian f a m ily -p lan n in g p o licie s w e re a m e n d e d in 2002, and that , s i nce then, t here h as been no o f f ic ia l p o lic ym a n d a tin g s te ri liz a tio n . T he B I A r efus ed t o cons i deral l of thi s new evi dence on the gr ounds t hati tdi d notqual i fyas new or m at er i al beca us e i tw as avai l abl e at t he t i m e of t he hea r i ng and w as cumul at i ve of other e v id e n c e o f

re c o rd

. W e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA p rop erlyd en ied H u an g ’s m ot i on t o r emand w i t h r es pect t o al l of t he n ew lysubm i t t ed evi dence exce ptt he cert i fi cat i on purpor t edl y i s s ued byFuzhou f a m ily -p lan n in g a u th o ri ti e s (I tem 5 ). M u c h o f th e su p p o se d ly new evi dence w as ei t herw i t hin H uang’ s contr ol atthe t i m e of t he I J pr ocee di ngs or i s dupl i cat i ve of otherpar t s of the r ecor d. S e e I n r e O- S

- G- , 2 4 I

. & N

. 56, 60 ( B

. I

. A

. 2006) ( r ej ect i ng a m ot i on t o r econs i derbeca us e i tm er el yr ei t erat ed fa ct s and ar gum ent s al r eadyi n the r ecor d)

. T he pas s por tand tr avel d o cu m ent s ( I t em 1) be l ongi ng t o H uang’ s s on w er e i n her p o ss e ss io n a t th e tim e o f th e IJ p ro c e e d in g s, a n d , w h ile sh e d id notobt ai n a pas s por t for her daught er unt i l s i x m ont hs aft ert he I J i s s ued hi s deci s i on, s he off er ed the passp o rt s onl yt o s how t hatherchi l dr en qual i fyas C hi nes e ci t i zens , a fa ctt hatt he governm entha s neverdi s put ed. B oth of the 2003 admi ni s t r at i ve38 deci s i ons ( I t em 3c) as w el l as the C hangl e C i t ypos t er( I t em 3d) ar e not new beca us e t hey w er e actual l y s ubm i t t ed t o the I J pr i or t o t he hea r i ng on H uang’ s pet i t i o n . T he Sept ember2, 2004 stat em en t from the F u ji an F o reign A ff

airs O ff ic e (It em 6 ), w hi ch s t at es that C hi na has no offi ci al pol i cyrequi r i ng steri li za ti o n , an d the d o cu m en ts f rom the F D F P A d ated Jan u ary 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 (It em 3 a), w h ich e x p lai n that fo reign -bo rn c h il d ren are n o t co u n ted u n d e r p ro v in c ial b irth c o n tro l p o licy , m e re ly r ei t er at e w hatot herdocument s i n the r ecor d have s t at ed

. T he w ebs i t e ( I t em 3b ) i n d i c a t i n g thatC hi nes e ci t i zens r eturni ng fr om a b r o a d ma yn o th a v e c h i l d r e n i n Ch i n a i f t h e y a l r e a d yh a v e two chi l dr en i s al s o r edundantof otherr ecor d m at er i al s , and the con t ent of L i P i ng Y e’s affidavi t (I t em 4) d up l i cat es the in- l aw s’ l et t er t hat w as subm i t t ed to the IJ. T he fa m i l y - pl anni ng pr opaganda ( I t em 2) i s notdupl i cat i v e of otheri t ems i n the r ecor d, and i tm aynot have been i n H uang’ s pos s es s i on befor e, buti tcontains no r efe r ence t o m andat orys t er i l i zat i on and th e re f o re h a s n o s ig n if

ic a n t b e a ri n g o n h e r a s y lu m ri g h ts
. H ow ever , t he B I A s houl d have gi ven more thor ough cons i der at i on t o t he mot i on t o r emand bas ed on the ce r t i fi cat i on ( I t em 5) s uppos edl yi s s ued byFuzhou fami l y - p lanni ng author i t i es . T hat document , w hi ch i s dat ed N ovember 15, 2007, w a s u n a v a ilab le w h e n th e IJ g ra n te d H u a n g a sy lu m in A p ril 2 0 0 7 , an d , u n lik e a n yo th e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , it p u rp o rts to b e a n o f f icia l p ro c la m a ti o n th a t H u a n g w ill b e re q u ire d to under go a s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e i f sh e returns t o C hi na. T he documents ay s i t i s i s s ued byfami l y - pl anni ng author i t i es i n her hus band’ s hom et ow n of Fuzhou, a ci t yw i t h w hi ch s he has fa m il yco n n ec ti o n s an d w h ere sh e m ay return o n ce sh e re -en ters C hi na. T he B I A ’ s ow n d ec is i on r ever s i ng t he I J ’ s gr antofT h e a u th e n ticityo f th e c e rtific a tio n m a y w e ll b e o p e n to 12 q u e stio n , an d th a t q u e stio n w ill re q u ire m o re th a n sp e c u latio n to a n s w e r. See Li n v. G onz al es , 445 F. 3d 127, 134 ( 2d C i r . 2006) (st ati n g that the “c o n clus ion that a pe ti ti o n er’s d o cu m en ts w ere fr audul entm us tbe bas ed on more th an sp ecul at i on and c o n jec tu re ” ). It ap p e a rs, h o w e v e r, th a t n u m e ro u s u n d isp u ted ly au then ti c d o cu m en ts co n tr ad ictthe c erti fica ti o n . H o w ev er, authent i ci t yi s notforus t o addr es s i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . 39 a sy lu m u n d e rsc o re s th e p o ten tial im p o rta n c e o f th e d o c u m e n t, beca us e thatdeci s i on fa u l t ed H uang forfai l i ng t o pr oduce “i ndi vi dual i zed e vi dence s how i n g that[s he] has r eas on t o fea r bei ng s i ngl ed out forper s ecut i on. ” ( R

. at5. ) T hus , atl eas ton i t s fac e, t he ce r t i fi cat i on appea r s t o pr ovi de pr eci s el yt he type of evi dence t hatm igh t alt ert he B I A ’ s cal cul us w hen r evi ew i ng H u a n g ’ s p e t i t i o n . I f a u t h e n t i c , t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n wou l d t hus 12 cons t i tute new , m at er i al evi dence thatbi r t h- contr ol author i t i es i n t he ci t yw her e H uang’ s fami l yr es i des m aytarge therfor ste ri l i zat i on , i f she returns t o the j uri sdi ct i on w i t hin th e ir en fo rce m entauthor i t y . T he B I A ’ s di s m i s s i ve tr eatm entof the c e rt if ic a tio n w a s in a p p ro p ri a te
. See I n r e J- S- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 5 2 0 , 5 3 9 (A tt’y G e n . 2 0 0 8 ) (in d ica tin g th a t as y lu m is a v a ilab le to in d iv id u a ls w h o h a v e e ith e r b e e n ste rilize d “ o r sp e c if ica lly th re a ten e d w i th such m e a su re s” (c itatio n o m itt e d )); accord Shao v. Mukas ey , 546 F. 3d 138, 156 ( 2d C i r . 2008 ) ( obs ervi ng that “s om e C hi nes e nat i onal s w i t h tw o orm or e chi l dr en mi ghtbe abl e t o demonstr at e a w el l

- founded f earof futur e for ced s t er i l i zat i on bas ed on g en era l po p u lat ion co n tr o l po li ci es w i thout a ny evidence of past persecut i on or t hreat s of pers ecutio n to th e m s e lv e s a s in d iv id u a ls ” ).40 A ccord ing ly , w e w i l l vaca t e the B I A ’ s deni al of the m o tio n to re m a n d w ith re sp e c t to th e c e rtific a tio n a n d w ill i ns t ructt he B I A t o r econs i derthe mot i on as t o t hatevi dence

. W e expr es s no opi ni on r egar di ng the mer i tof the mot i on. I V . C oncl usi on W e w i l l vaca t e th e B IA ’s or derof r emoval and r emand H u a n g ’ s a sy lu m p e tit io n to th e B IA f o r c o n sid e ra tio n in acc or dance w i t h t hi s opi ni on. W hen consi der i ng t he pet i t i on on r emand, t he B I A m us tal s o evalua te w hethert o r eopen the r ecor d t o perm i tfur t hercons i der at i on of the purpor t ed cert i f i c a t i o n f r o m Fu z h o u fami l y - pl anni ng author i t i es i ndi cat i ng t hatH uang w i l l be s t er i l i zed i f s he r eturns t o C hi na.