2008 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

11-26-2008 

# C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3199

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_2008

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 2008 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

" C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 173. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/173P 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. 07- 3122

J I AN Z HAU Z HE NG,
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 a D eci s i on and O r derof the

B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 70- 838- 800)
I m m i gr at i on J udge: W i l l i am S t r as s er

N o. 07- 3199

Z HI YONG C HE N,2 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 a D eci s i on and O r derof the

B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 77- 340- 635)
Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d F erl i se

A r gued O ct ober27, 2008

B E F O R E : S L O V ITE R and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es,

and I R E N A S, D i s t r i ctJ udge* ( Fi l ed: N ovember26, 2008)

G aryJ

. Y erm an ( ar gued)

*H on. J os eph I r enas , Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct3 C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. Y erm an & A s s oci at es 401 B r oadw ay Sui t e 1210 N ew Y or k, N Y 10013- 0000
A t t or ney s forPet i t i oneri n N o. 07- 3122
Je f f re yS . B u c h o ltz A ct i ng A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al C i vi l D i vi s i on M i chae l P. L i nderm ann R i char d M

. E vans E t han B

. K ant er( ar gued) Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044- 0000
M i chae l P. L i ndemann A s s i s t antD i r ect or P. O

. B ox 878
B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044- 0000
A t t or ney s forR es pondenti n N o. 07- 3122 G aryJ

. Y erm an ( ar gued) Y erm an & A s s oci at es 401 B r oadw ay Sui t e 12104 N ew Y or k, N Y 10013- 0000
A t t or ney s forPet i t i oneri n N o. 07- 3199
Je f f re yS . B u c h o ltz A ct i ng A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al C i vi l D i vi s i on C ar ol Feder i ght Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on M

. J ocel yn L opez- W r i ght 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 Sui t e 700S 1 3 3 1 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20530- 0000
E r i c W

. M ar s t el l ar( ar gued) Paul F. St one 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 P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044- 0000
A t t or ney s forR es pondenti n N o. 07- 3199

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTZhe ng fi l e d a n e a r l i e r mot i on t o r e op e n t ha t w e dis cuss 1 b e l o w. 5 G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I

. I NT RO DUC T I ON
T h e se tw o m a tters c o m e o n b e f o re th is C o u rt o n se p a ra te pet i t i ons forr evi ew of dec i s i ons and or der s of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) br oughtbyJ i an Z hau Zheng and Z h i Y o n g C h en . B o th p eti ti o n ers a re c it izen s o f th e P eo p le’s R e p u b lic o f

C h in a f ro m F u jian P ro v in c e w h o c u rre n tlyre sid e in th e U n ited S tate s, a n d e a c h is m a rrie d w ith m o re th a n o n e c h ild bor n i n t hi s countr y . I n bot h cas es t he B I A r ej ect ed the p e tit io n e r’s a p p e a l f

ro m a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e n ial o f h is appl i cat i on foras y l um , fol l ow i ng w hi ch ea ch pet i t i onerfi l ed an uns ucce s sfu l m ot i on w i t h t he B I A t o r eopen hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . T h ese p et i t i ons forr evi ew of the deni al of the

1 m ot i ons for r eopeni ng fol l ow ed. Si gni fi cant l y , eac h pet i t i oner bas ed hi s m o ti on on al l egat i ons t hatt her e had be en cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na fr om t hos e ext antatt he t i m e of the d e n ia l o f h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m . I nas m uch as t he tw o cas es conce r n s i m i l ar q u est i ons of l aw and of f

actand r eac h thi s C our tfol l ow i ng al m os tpar al l el p ro c e d u ra l p a th s, w e w ill a d d re ss b o th p e tit io n e rs’ p e tit io n s in t his con sol i dated op i nion. F or the reasons t hat w e w i l l dis cuss, w e w i l l vaca t e the B I A ’ s deni al of the pet i t i oner s ’ r es pec t i ve m ot i ons t o r eopen and re m and the mat t er s t o t he B I A forfur t her pr ocee di ngs. In d o i ng s o, how ever , w e make cl earthatw e doR es pondentcont ends t hatZ heng fa i l ed t o appea r at t he 2 hear i ng “des pi t e ef

for t s t o cont act[hi m ] and not i fyhi m of the obl i gat i on t o at t end. ” B r . at4. W e make no det erm i nat i on on the q u esti on of w hyZ heng di d notappea rfort he hea r i ng, but w ill a ss u m e w ith o u t d e c id in g th a t h e d id n o t a p p e a r b e c a u se h is at t or neydi d notadvi s e hi m of the nee d t o do s o. 6 nots ugges tt hatw e di s agr ee w i t h t he r es ul t s t he B I A r eac hed on t he r ecor ds befor e i tas w e pr edi cate ourhol di ng s ol el yon p roc ed u ra l d e f

ici en cies tha t w e f

ind ex ist ed in the B IA proceed i ng s.

I I

. BA CK GR OUND
A

. Z heng
Z heng arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es on A ugus t27, 1993. H e m a rrie d in N e w Y o rk o n Ja n u a ry2 3 , 1 9 9 8 , a n d h e a n d h is w i fe have t hr ee chi l dr en, t he fi r s t bor n on J anuary29, 1998, the s econd born on J anuary4, 1999, and t he t hi r d bor n on J une 21, 2000. O n A ugus t27, 1993, Z heng, w ho w as r epr es ent ed byan a t t o r n e yo t h e r t ha n hi s a t t o r n e yo n th i s a p p e a l , s o u g h ta s y l u m. A n i m m i gr at i on j udge conduct ed a hear i ng on hi s appl i cat i on on M ar ch 10, 1997, but , bas ed on Z heng’ s fai l ur e t o appea r atthe hear i ng, deni ed hi s r eques tforas y l um and or der ed hi s excl us i on in a b se n tia. Z h e n g a ss e rts th a t h e d id n o t ap p e a r b e c a u se h is at t or neydi d noti nform hi m of t he hear i ng dat e. M or eover , he 2 cl ai m s t hat h e di d notl earn of the deni al of hi s r eques tfor7 as y l um unt i l Sept ember 1997, w hen an appl i cat i on forr enew al of hi s empl oym entauthor i zat i on w as d eni ed. Z heng appe al ed fro m the d en ial o f asy lum , b u t o n D ec em b er 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 , the B IA d e n ie d th e a p p e a l a s u n tim e ly.
O n Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , Z h e n g f iled a m o tio n w ith th e B IA to r eopen hi s cas e on the bas i s of hi s change d persona l ci r cumst ance s , namel y , t he bi r t h of hi s t hr ee chi l dr en i n the U ni t ed St at es . H e cl ai m ed t hat “[u] nder t he curr entr ecogni zed cl i m at e of coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol ” i n C hi na i f he r eturned t o C hi na he w oul d be per s ecut ed for havi ng m or e t han one c hi l d. A pp. at 177. H e di d notcl ai m , how ever , thatther e had be en a m a ter ial c h a n g e in c irc u m sta n c e s in C h in a w ith re s p e c t to popul at i on contr ol betw een t he t i m e thathe fi l ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on and the t i m e of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. O n O ct ober9, 2002, t he B I A deni ed hi s m ot i on t o reope n and i nas m uch as Z h en g d id n o t f

il e a p eti ti o n fo r re v iew o f th at de n ial , n o co u rt of appe al s has r evi ew ed thatdeni al and w e, of cour s e, do not r e v i e w i tn o w. O n A u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , Z h e n g f iled a se c o n d m o tio n to r eopen hi s cas e, cont endi ng that h e s houl d be gr ant ed as y l um b e c a u se o f

c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s in C h in a b y re a so n o f its enhanc ed enf

or cementof i t s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es as compar ed t o t hos e atthe t i m e thatthe i m m i gr at i on j udge and B I A d eni ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. M or eover , he ar gued that hi s couns el had bee n i neff ect i ve dur i ng hi s or i gi nal as y l um pr ocee di ngs t hatan i m m i gr at i on j udge had di s m i s s ed bec aus e of hi s fai l ur e t o appea rforhi s hear i ng. Z h en g s ubm i t t ed s ever al d o c u m ents i n sup po rtof h i s m oti on as evi den ce of t ho se change d ci r cumst ance s an d fi l ed a pe r s onal aff i davi tw hi ch8 s t at ed:
I n myr e c e n tp h o n e c o n t a c t s wi t h myf a mi l ya nd frien d s in C h ina, I w as t o ld th at i n the p ast y ea r, t he governm enthad i ncr eas ed t h e u se of l abor camp, for ced ab o rt i ons and s t er i l i zat i ons . I w as al s o t ol d t hat a coupl e i s onl y al l ow ed t o have one chi l d. T hos e w ho r es i s tand vi ol at e the new l aw w oul d n o to n l yb e f

o r c e d t o u n d e r g o a b o r t i on op erat i on s or s t eri li zat i on proced ures, bu tal so fac e cr i m i nal pr os ecut i o n pur s uantt o the P o p u latio n a n d F a m ilyP lan n in g L a w . W h a t I hear d i s cons i s t entw i t h the 2005 C ount y[s i c] R ep o rto n C h ina b ythe [ S tat e D ep artm en t]

. Id . at 5 5 . Z h e n g f

u rth e r sta ted in h is a f

f id a v it: Such p erse cu ti o n s h av e done i rr epar abl e damage[] t o m any fami l i es of y oung coupl es . M ynei ghbor Z hou Zh e n g i s a n e x a mpl e . [ He] a n d h i s wi fe L in, H u i ha[ d ] th eir f

ir s t d au g h ter sev era l y ea rs ago, . . . and [] s ecr et l ygave bi r t h t o t hei rs econd d a u g h ter
. U n f

o rtu n a tely , th e g o v e rn m e n t f a m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s found out and for ced Zhou Z heng t o under go s t er i l i za ti on i m m edi at el yon 04/ 10/ 2006. M ynei ghbor Z heng, Q un i s another vi ct i m . A ft erhi s w i fe ga ve bi rth t o [a boyand a gi r l ]

. . . , on Fe b [.] 28, 2006, Z heng, Q un w as forci blyst eri l i zed b ythe fa mi l ypl a nn i ng off i ci al s. I d. at55- 56. Z heng al s o s t at ed:9 I r eques t ed mypar ent s t o i nqui r e w i t h t he v illa g e r’ s c o m m itte e in m yh o m e to w n . M y p are n ts to ld m e tha t th e v il lage o ff ici als w ere al r eadyaw ar e that I had tw o chi l dr en i n the U nit ed St at es . A n offi ci al l ett eri s s ued byt he v il lage r co m m ittee in re sp o n se to m yinq u iry s t at ed thatI w as s t il l cons i der ed [] a ci t i zen of C h in a a n d h a d to u n d e rg o n e c e ss a ryf a m ily p lanni ng pr ocedur es w i t h[i n] one w eek once I re tu rn [ ] t o C h in a . . . . I d. at56. Z heng al s o s ubm i t t ed w hatpurpor t s t o be a l ett erfr om C h a n g le C ity S h o u z h a n T o w n P e o p le’ s G o v e rn m e n t F a m ily Pl anni ng O ffi ce ( “C hangl e C i t yl ett er”) d at ed J une 9, 2006, w hi ch s t at es : “[a ] l t hough y ou ar e c urr ent l yr es i di ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es , y ou ar e s t i l l a ci t i zen of t he Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of C h in a w h o h a d th re e c h ild re n , a n d th e re f o re y o u w ill d e f

in itely be t ar get ed t o [s i c] s t er i l i zat i on. ” I d. at72.
In a d d it ion to h is aff

idav itan d the C h an g le C itylet ter, Zh e n g s u b mi t t e d s e v e r a l d o c u me n t s d e s c r i b i n g wh a th e c l a i ms ar e cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na. T hes e document s i ncl ude: ( 1) t w o r epor t s by the S t at e D epart m entent i t l ed “Chi na – C o u n tryR ep o rt s o n H u m an R igh ts Pra cti c es” (“C o u n try R epor t ”) for200 4 an d 2 005 ( i s s ued i n 2005 and 2006 r es pect i vel y ) ; ( 2) a St at e D epart m ent d o cu m entent i t l ed “C ons ul arI nform at i on Sheet– C hi na” ( “C ons ul arI nform at i on Sheet ”) dat ed M ay29, 2003; ( 3 ) a r epor tent i t l ed “C ongr es s i onal

- E xecut i ve C om m i s s i on on C hi na – A nnual R ep o rt ” (“ C o m m issi o n R ep o rt ”) f o r 20 0 5 ; ( 4 ) t esti m o n ybyJ ohn A i r d t o C ongr es s conce r ni ng C hi na’ s fami l y pl anni ng l aw fr om10 Sept ember23, 2002; ( 5) t es t i m ony byH arr yW u t o C ongr es s on D ece m ber14, 2004; ( 6 ) a documentent i t l ed “Popul at i on and Fam i l yPlan ni ng R egul at i on of Fuj i an Pr ovi nce” ( “Fuj i an R egul at i on”) dat ed J ul y26, 2 0 02; and ( 7) t w o new s paper art i cl es fr om 20 05

. Inasm uch as t hese docu m ents did not exi st w hen he f

i l ed hi s o ri g ina l pet i t i on t o r eopen, he coul d not pr es entanyof them w i t h t hatm ot i on. O n J une 21, 2007, the B I A deni ed Zheng’ s s econd m ot i on t o r eopen hi s cas e, and on J ul y16, 2007, Z heng fi l ed the pet i t i on now befor e us t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s J une 21, 2007 d ec isi o n an d o rde r. B

. C hen
C hen arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es on J anuary31, 2001, and w as m arr i ed i n Penns y l vani a on M ay18, 2001. C hen and hi s w i fe ha ve tw o chi l dr en, t he fi r s tbor n on J une 24, 2002, and t he s econd born on N o v em ber22, 2003. C hen s oughtas y l um b u t o n J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , an im m ig ra tio n ju d g e d e n ied h is appl i cat i on foras y l um and orde r ed hi s r emoval

. C hen appe al ed, b u t o n J u ly 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , th e B IA a f f irm e d th e d e n ia l.
O n M arch 9, 20 07 , C hen fi l ed a m oti on t o reope n h i s case bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na. C hen s ubm i t t ed s ever al document s i n s uppor t of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, i ncl udi ng a per s onal aff

i davi ti n w hi ch he s t at ed: [T ]he b irth o f o u r ch il d ren h as m ad e m yreturn hom e more r i s kyand dange r ous . I n m yr ece nt p h o n e c o n tac ts w ith m y fa m il[y ] a n d f rie n d s in11 C hi na, I w as t ol d thati n the pas ty ear , t he governm ent has i ncr eas ed t he us e of forc ed abor t i ons and s t er i l i zat i on. T hos e w ho r es i s tand v io late th e n e w law w o u ld n o t o n ly b e f o r c e d to under go abor t i on oper at i ons ors t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur es , butal s o fac e cr i m i nal pr osec ut i on pur s uantt o t he Popul at i on and F ami l yPl anni ng L aw (P F P L ). Id . at 3 5 . H e a lso sta ted in h is a f f id a v it:
M ym otherrel at ed to m e several such tr ag ic incid en ts [that ] h a p p en ed in m yh o m etow n . M r. Ga n g Z h e n g a n d h i s wi f e M s . Hu a Qi n h a v e two daught er s . T heyw ant ed a s on verym uch. U nfo r tun a t e l y , on M a r c h 3 , 20 06 , t he w i fe M s. H ua Q i n w as for ced i nt o a s t er i l i zat i on t o pr event t hem from havi ng m or e chi l dr en i n the futur e. T he s ame tr agedy al s o happene d t o M r . J i anpi ng L in an d h is w ife. T h e y a lso h av e tw o d au g h ters and w ant ed a s on. H ow ever , M r . L i n’ s w i fe w as for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i n A pr i l 2006.
I d. at36. T he af

fi davi tcont i nued:
M yp are n ts t o ld m e that the v il lage o ff ici als w ere al r eadyaw ar e t hatI had tw o chi l dr en i n the U ni t ed St at es . T heyal s o t ol d m e th ats i nce I do nothave l egal s tat u s i n t he U ni t ed St at es , I w as s t i l l cons i der ed [] a ci t i zen of C h ina[, ] notan o v e rse a s C h in e se [ ;] th e re f o re o n c e I re tu rn [ ] to12 C h in a , I h a [ v e ] to u n d e rg o n e c e ss a ryf a m ily pl anni ng pr ocedur es , s uch as abor t i ons and s t er i l i zat i ons , unl es s I become an U

. S. ci t i zen, perm anentr es i dentorobt ai n[] M as t eror D octor at e deg rees i n the U nit ed S t at es. I d.
I n addi t i on t o hi s aff i davi t , C hen subm i t t ed a l et t erfr om hi s m ot her , i n w hi ch s he s t at ed:
R ece nt l yt he C hi nes e gover n m en t ha s s t r engthened the enf

or cementof the Popul at i on and Fam i l y Pl anni ng L aw ( PFP L )

. D ur i n g the pas ty ear , t her e w er e a l otof enf or ced a bor t i ons and s t er i l i zat i ons i n our hom et ow n. T he s i tuat i on is m u c h w o rs e th a n b e f o re . F o r e x a m p le , a r es i denti n ourvi l l age na m ed G amg Z heng has t w o daught er s . H e w ant ed t o h ave a s on. H o w e v e r, h is w if

e , H u a Q in , w a s f

o rc e d to under go an i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on on M ar ch 3, 2006. Secondl y , t her e i s a coupl e i n our vil la ge, M r . a n d M r s . J i a n p i n g Ch e n . T h e y h a v e two d a u g h t e r s a n d a l s o w a n t e d a s o n . U n f o r tu n a t e l y, M r . C hen w as s t er i l i zed i n A pr i l , 2006. B as ed on th e a b o v e in c id e n ts, if m yso n w e re se n t b a c k to M a in lan d C h in a , h e w o u ld a lso b e in v o lu n tar ily s t er i l i zed a nd w oul d nothave mor e chi l dr en i n the futur e beca use he h as al readyhad tw o son s. I d. at65- 66.13 I n addi t i on t o the af

fi davi t and l et t er , C hen s ubm i t t ed ot herdo c u me n t s t o d e mon s tr a t e c h a n ged ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na s i nce the t i m e of hi s or i gi nal appl i cat i on foras y lum

. Sever al d o cu m en ts are the sam e a s o n es th at Z h en g su b m itted in su p p o rt of hi s m ot i on, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) the St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2004 and 2005 C ount r yR epor t s ; ( 2) the C ons ul ar I nform at i on Sheetdat ed M ay29, 2003; ( 3) t he C o n g ress i onal E xecut i ve C om m i s s i on R e p o rt f o r 2 0 0 5 ; (4 ) A ird ’s S e p tem b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 tes tim o n yto C on gress ; (5) W u’s D ecem ber 14, 2004 t est i m on yt o C on gress ; and ( 6) t he s ame tw o new s paper art i cl es fr om 2005. B utC hen al s o i ncl uded document s noti ncl uded w i t h Z heng’ s m ot i on: ( 1) a docum en t byt he A dm i ni s t r at i ve O ffi ce of the N at i onal Popul at i on and Fami l yPl anni ng C om m i t t ee, dat ed M arch 14, 2 0 0 6 ; (2 ) a d o c u m e n t th a t C h e n d e sc rib e s a s th e “ C h a n g le C ity Fam i l yPl anni ng Q & A H andbook”; and ( 3) t he C ongr es s i onal E x e c u tiv e C o m m is s io n R e p o rt f o r 2 0 0 6

. O n Ju n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , the B I A d e n ied C h e n ’s m o tio n to r eopen hi s cas e and on J ul y23, 2007, C hen fi l ed t he pet i t i on n o w b ef o re u s to rev iew the B IA ’s de cisi o n an d o rde r.

I I I

. J UR I SDI CTI ON AN D STA ND AR D O F REVI EW
Z heng and Chen corr ect l yas s ertthatth e B IA had j uri s di ct i on under8 C

. F. R

. § 1003. 2( c)

. W e have j ur i s di ct i on o v e r t h e p re s e n t p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v ie w p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . §W e have notoverl o oked r es pondent ’ s cont ent i on t hatthe 3 pr ocee di ngs on Z heng’ s or i gi nal m ot i on t o r eopen depr i ve us of j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er t ai n hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew of th e deni al of h is seco n d m o ti o n to reo p en . In c o n side ri n g the re s p o n d e n t’ s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o n t e n t i o n we r e c o g n i z e t h a ti n t h e l i g h tof 8 C

. F. R

. § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) and ( 2) , w hi ch w e di s cus s bel ow , i f a pet i t i onerdi d notfi le a p eti t i on forr evi ew fr om a deni al of a m o ti o n to reo p en , it re a s o n ab lyco u ld b e a rgu ed that the B IA w oul d be j us t i fi ed on a sec o nd m ot i on t o r eopen i n pr ecl udi ng hi m fr om advanc i ng evi dence t hatw as avai l abl e orcoul d have been di s cover ed forus e att he pr i orpr oceedi ngs butw as not pr es ent ed. B uteven i f thati s true, w e s ee no bas i s t o hol d t hat if a p e tit io n e r b rin g s a se c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n h is f a ilu re to pr es entevi dence on a pr i orm ot i on s houl d depr i ve a c our tof a p p e a ls o f

th e ju risd ictio n th a t it o th e rw ise w o u ld h a v e to ent er t ai n a pet i t i on forr evi ew fr om a denial o f t he s econd m ot i on. In thi s r egar d w e poi ntoutthatr es pondentdoes not d ire c t o u r a tten tio n to a n ysta tu te o r re g u latio n th a t ex p licitly d e p riv e s u s o f ju risd ictio n th a t w e o th e rw ise w o u ld h a v e in th is s i tuat i on, and w e ar e aw are of none, though w e r ecogni ze that C ongr es s i nt ended thator di nar i l yan al i en coul d br i ng onl yone m ot i on t o r eopen. In f a c t th e re sp o n d e n t in d ica tes in h is b rie f th a t “ [ w ]ith l i m i t ed exc ept i ons , one of w hi ch i s her e ati s s ue, an al i en may f ile o n lyo n e m o tio n to re o p e n a n d m u st f ile th a t m o tio n w ith in ni netyday s of t h e dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve de c i s i o n was r e n d e r e d , ” c i t i n g 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. B r . at 14 1252. W e r evi ew t he deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of 314 ( emphasi s added)

. M o reove r , 8 C

. F. R

. § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) provides that t h e t i m e and nu m eri cal l i m i t at i on s ot herw i se ap p li ca b le do n o t “ap p lyto a m o ti o n to reo p en p roc ee d ing s [t]o appl y or r eappl y for as y l um orw i t hhol di ng of deport at i on bas ed o n c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity or i n t he countr y t o w hi ch deport at i on has been or der ed, i f s uch evi dence i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave been di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous hear i ng. ”
T hi s r egul at i on w i t h r es pectt o new l yavai l abl e evi dence des cr i b es the s i tuat i on her e i nas m uch as none of the ei ght document s t hatZ heng subm i t t ed t hat w e l i s t ed above exi s t ed on J une 27, 2002, w hen he f i l ed hi s fi r st m o ti o n t o r eopen. Fur t herm or e, w hi l e ce r t ai n of thes e documen ts di d exi s ton O c to b e r 9 , 2 0 0 2 , w h e n th e B IA d e n ied Z h e n g ’s f irst m o tio n to re o p e n , itis n o t cle a r to u s th a t ev e n th o se d o c u m e n ts c o u ld hav e been present ed o n the earl i er m otio n to re op en. W e al so p o in t o u t th a t th e B IA ’s O c to b e r 9 , 2 0 0 2 d e c isio n a n d o rd e r d id notci t e anyof t he ei ght document s , an under s t andabl e omi s s i on i nas m uch as al l ei ghtr el at e t o condi t i ons i n C hi na w her eas the B IA re g a rd e d Z h e n g ’s m o tio n a s b e in g “ b a se d o n a c h a n g e in hi s per s onal ci r cumst ance s , the bi r t h of thr ee c hi l dr en af t erthe B oar d’ s adver s e dec i s i on w as r ender ed. ” A pp. at169. 15 d iscreti o n . G u o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 6 F

. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). W e w i l l not di s turb t he B I A ’ s deci s i ons “unl es s t hey ar e found t o be arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” I d. ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted).16 I V. DI S CU S S I ON
T h e g e n e ra l cr iteria g o v e rn in g m oti on s t o reope n s e t f o rth in 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ) p ro v id e th a t: A m ot i on t o r eop en proc eedi ngs s hal l s t at e the new fac t s t hatw i l l b e p roven a ta hea r i ng t o be hel d i f the mot i on i s gr ant ed and s hal l be su p por t ed byaff

i davi t s orot herevi dent i ary m at er i al

. A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs forthe purpos e of s ubm i t t i ng an appl i cat i on forreli ef m u st b e a c c o m p a n ied b yth e a p p r o p ria te appl i cat i on forr el i ef a nd al l s up p o r t i ng document at i on. A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs sh all n o t b e g ran ted u n less itap p ea rs t o the B o ard t hatevi dence s oughtt o be off er ed i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en 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 . . .

. A l t hough a mot i on t o r eopen “ m us tbe fi l ed no l atert han 90 day s aft ert he dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi nist rati v e dec i s i on wa s r e n d e r e d i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o u g h t t o b e r e o p e n e d , ” 8 C. F

. R. § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) , t he 9 0 -dayl i m i t at i on does notappl yi f the m ovants eeks reope ni ng “bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n t he countr yof nat i onal i t yori n the countr yt o w hi ch depo rt at i on has been or der ed, i f s uch evi dence i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or p rese n ted a t th e pre v iou s h ea ri n g . ” 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 (c)(3)(ii ).17 T he Supr eme C our t has s et for t h t hr ee bas es on w hi ch the B IA c a n d e n ya m o tio n to re o p e n : F irst, i t m a y h o ld th a t th e m o v a n t h a s f a iled to e sta b lish a p rim a f

a c ie c a se f

o r th e re lief

so u g h t .

. . . Second, i t m ay hol d t hat t he m ov an t has fail ed t o i nt r oduce pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, m at er i al evi dence that j us t i fi es r eopeni ng, as re q u ir e d b y re g u la tio n . T hi r d, i n ‘ cas es i n w hi ch t he u l t i m at e grantof rel i ef [b ei ng soug ht] is di s cr et i onary( as y l um , s us pens i on of deport at i on, and adj us t m entof s t atus , butnotw i t hhol di ng of depor t at i on) , ’ the B oar d can ‘ l eap a head .

. . over t he t w o t hr es hol d conce r ns ( pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and n e w e v id e n c e /re a so n a b le e x p lan a tio n ) and si m p ly det erm i ne thateven i f theyw er e met , t he movant w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o t he di s cr et i onarygr antof re lie f.’ Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 169- 70 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng I N S v. A budu, 485 U

. S. 94, 105, 108 S. C t. 9 0 4 , 9 12 ( 1988) ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. B ut r egar dl es s of w hi ch of thes e m u lt iple b ase s fo r d en y ing a m o ti o n to reo p en that the B IA is ex am ining , w h en co n side ri n g a m o tio n to reo p en the B IA

“ m u st a c tu a llyc 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 rese n ts. ” A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 (3d C ir

. 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. I f the B I A r ej ect s the m o tio n to re o p e n , o n a n e n su in g p e tit io n f o r re v iew a c o u rt w ill uphol d t hatdet erm i nat i on if iti s “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and proba t i ve evi dence on t he re cor d cons i der ed as a w h o le.” IN S v . E lias -Z a c a ria s, 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 , 1 1 2 S .C t.18 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 (1 9 9 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).
T o qu ali fyforas y l um orw i t hhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cantm us tes t abl i s h thathe has a w el l

- founded f eart hathe w i l l be per s ecut ed i f r emoved t o hi s hom e countr yon acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a p art i cul ars oci al g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion

. 8 U

. S

. C

. § § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 ), 1 1 5 8 (b ), 1231( b) ( 3)

. “[A ] per s on w ho has a w el l founded f earthathe or sh e w il l be f

o rce d to [a b o rt a p reg n an cyo r un d erg o inv o lun tary ste riliza tio n ] o r [ is] s u b jec t to p e rse c u tio n f

o r [ f a ilu re , ref

u sa l, o r r e s is tan c e to u n d e rg o su c h a p ro c e d u re ] sh a ll b e d e e m e d to have a w el l founded f

earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal o p inion

. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(B ).
A n appl i cantbear s t he bur den of pr ovi n g el i gi bi l i t yfor a s y l u m b a s e d o n s p e c i f

i c f a c t s a n d c r e d i b l e t e s t i mo n y . 8 C. F

. R. § 2 0 8

. 1 3 (a); A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F

. 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 2 (3d C ir

. 2001). T o demonstr at e thathe has a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us ts at i s fyt hr ee r equi r ement s : ( 1) he ors he has a fea r of per s ecut i on i n hi s orhernat i ve countr y ; ( 2) t her e i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hat he or s he w i l l be per s ecut ed upon r etur n t o t hatcountr y ; and ( 3) the appl i canti s unabl e or u n w il li n g to return to tha t cou n tryas a resu lto f h is or h er f ea r. 8 C

. F. R

. § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i )

. T he el i gi bi l i t y t hr es hold for obt ai ni ng w i t hhol di ng of r emova l is h i ghert han thatfor obtai n ing a s y l um as t he A t t orneyG ener al m us tdet erm i ne that r epatr i at i on w oul d t hr eat en the ali en’ s l i fe orfr eedom on a c c o u n t o f

o n e o f th e p r o te c ted g ro u n d s to w ith h o ld re m o v a l. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1231( b) ( 3)

. A n appl i cantforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval t her efor e m us t demonstr at e a “cl ear pr obabi l i t y ” of pe r s ecut i on i f he i s r e mov e d

. Se n a t h i r a j a h v . I NS, 1 5 7 F. 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 5 ( 3d19 C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).
A

. Z heng
1. C hanged c i r cumst ance s Z heng fi l ed hi s or i gi nal m ot i on t o r eop en o n J une 27, 2002, butt he B I A deni ed t hat m ot i on as unt i m el y on O ct ober9, 2 0 0 2 , an d , a s w e in d ica ted a b o v e , w e d o n o t re v iew th a t d e n ial. Z heng fi l ed hi s s econd m ot i on t o r eopen, t he deni al of w hi ch has l ed t o t hes e pr ocee di ngs , on A ugus t18, 2006. A l t hough Z heng ar gued i n hi s s econd mot i on t o r eope n tha tther e had be en change d ci r cumst ance s i n C h ina fr om the t i m e thathe s ought as y l um t hatw arr ant ed exc ept i on fr om t he 90- dayli m it at i on pur s uantt o 8 C

. F. R

. § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) , t he B I A concl uded that

“ th e p e n d in g m o ti o n d o e s n o t f a ll w ith in [ th a t] tim e lim it e x c e p tio n .” A p p . at 3 . In th e se p ro c e e d in g s Z h e n g p rim a rily ar gues t hatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et ion in r eac hi ng t hat concl us i on, and w e ther efor e begi n o u ranal y s i s of hi s cas e by r evi ew i ng t hatas pectof i t s deci s i on. I n t hatdeci s i on, t he B IA s t at ed that“[w ] e aga i n fi nd, aft er cons i der i ng t he ar gum ent s and evi dence s ubm i t t ed byt he appl i cant , t hatt he bi r t h of the app ell ant ’ s thr ee c hi l dr en i n t he U n ited S t at es and his m arr i age do not con st i tute a chan g e in c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lityw h ich w o u ld cr eat e an e xcept i on t o t he t i m e and n u m eri cal l i m i t at i ons for fil ing a m o ti o n to reo p en . ” Id

. at 3

. In its d ec isi o n the B IA d iscu ssed M att er o f J-W -S -, 2 4 I & N D ec . 1 8 5 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ), r evi ew deni ed, Shao v. M ukas ey , N o. 07- 2689, F. 3d , 2008 W L 4 5 3 1 5 7 1 (2d C ir

. O ct. 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). In p arti cu lar, the B IAW e have r ej ect ed A i r d’ s pos i t i on, s ee Y u v. A t t orney 4 Ge n e r a l , 5 1 3 F

. 3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 8

- 4 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a s h a s th e BI A, see In re C -C , 2 3 I. & N

. D ec . 8 9 9 , 9 0 1 (B IA 2 0 0 6 ). 20 focus ed on J

- W

- S- ’ s r evi ew of thr ee doc um ent s s ubm i t t ed as e v id e n c e in th a t ca se : (1 ) a f f id a v its b yA ird ; (2 ) th e S tate 4 D epart m ent ’ s C ount r yR epor tfor2006; and ( 3) a r epor tbythe S t a t e De p a r t m e n te n t i t l e d “ C h i n a : P r o f i l e o f As y l u m C l a i ms and C ount r y C ondi t i ons , ” dat ed M ay2007. I d. T he B I A quot ed J

- W- S

- ’ s d i s c u s s i o n o f

th o s e r e p o r t s , a n d o b s e r v e d th a ti n J

- WS- t he B I A “conc l uded, bas ed on the 2007 Pr ofi l e, thatchi l dr en bor n over s eas ar e not count ed forbi r t h pl anni ng purpos es w hen t h e p a r e n t s r e tu r n t o C h i n a . ” I d

. T h e B I A f u r t h e rq u o t e d J

- WS - in sta tin g th a t “ if a re tu rn e e w h o h a s h a d a se c o n d c h ild w h ile outsi de of Chi na i s penal i zed a tal l upon r eturn, the s anct i ons w oul d be fi nes or o t hereconomi c pena l t i es . ” I d. ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted).
I n ouranal y s i s w e i ni t i al l y not e thatal t hough the bi r t h of Z heng’ s t hr ee c hi l dr en af t er t he deni al of hi s as y l um appl i cat i on o b v io u slyis a sig n if

ica n t f a c to r in th is c a se a s th e p o ss ib ili ty that h e m igh t suf

fe r pe rsec u ti o n arises f ro m it, the B IA ’s char act er i zat i on of Zheng’ s m ot i on t o r eopen a s bei ng bas ed on th o se b irth s ra th e r th a n c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s in C h in a is i nacc ur at e. I ndeed, i n Z heng’ s br i ef t o t he B I A i n s uppor tof the m ot i on, he ar gued that“[t ] hes e pr ocee di ngs s houl d be r eopene d as t he evi dence i n s uppor tof [the] m ot i on w as unavai l abl e att he tim e o f th e o ri g in a l h e a rin g , an d th e e v id e n c e d o c u m e n ts condi t i ons i n C hi na w hi ch have arisen s i nce thatdat e. ” I d. at 1 2

. T h e re f

o re w e w ill d isc u ss w h e th e r th e B IA a b u se d its21 d isc re tio n in c o n c lu d in g th a t Z h e n g f a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n to demonstr at e cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na. In L i v. A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 8 8 F .3 d 1 3 7 1 (11 th C ir

. 2007) , t he C our tof A ppeal s fo r t he El eventh C i r cui tr evi ew ed t he B I A ’ s deni al o f a m ot i on t o r eopen a n as y l um cas e. T he pet i t i onerhad s ubm i t t ed s ever al o f the document s thatZ heng and C hen have s ubm i t t ed i n t hes e ca ses. I n par t i cul ar , the p eti ti o n er i n L i o ff

ere d as ev iden ce the S tat e D e p a rtm en t’ s C ount r yR epor t s for2004 and 2005, th e 2005 C om m i s s i on R epor t , and A i r d’ s t es t i m onyt o C ongr es s i n 2002. I d. at1373. T he pet i t i oneri n L i al s o s ubm i t t ed heraff i davi tand thatof her m ot her , t he St at e D epart m ent’s C ount r yR epor tfor2003, the C ons ul arI nform at i on Sheetfor2005, and tw o uni dent i fi ed new s paperar t i cl es fr om 2005. I d.
I n r evi ew i ng t he B I A ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen the cour t in Li di s cus s ed var i ous s t at ement s cont ai ned i n t he aff i davi t s des cr i bi ng exampl es of for ci bl e s t er i l i zat i on fr om the pet i t i oner ’ s hom et ow n. See i d. at1375. T he courtobs erved that t he pet i t i oner ’ s “otherevi dence corr obor at ed heranec dot al evi dence of a c hange i n pol i cyi n herpr ovi nce a nd s ubs t ant i at ed herfea rt hatl ocal offi ci als in Fuj i an have t he i ncent i ves and d iscreti o n to steri li ze w o m en w ith m o re tha n o n e c h il d

. ” Id. In p a rticu lar , the c o u rt re f

e rre d to sta tem e n ts c o n tain e d in th e S tate D epart m ent ’ s 2005 C ount r yR epor t
. T he c o u rtconcl uded that “Li ’ s evi dence of a r ece nt campai gn of for ced s t er i l i zat i on i n her hom e vi l l age, evi dence cons i s t entw i t h t he concl us i on of r ece nt g o v e rn m e n t re p o rts, c lea rly sa tisf ied th e c riter ia f

o r a m o tio n to reo p en h er rem o v al pro ce ed ing s. ” Id

. C o n tr aryto the B IA ’s fi ndi ng s in L i a s w el l as i n Z heng’ s cas e, t he courts t at ed thatA l t hough Z heng s ubm i t t ed the C ons ul arI nform at i on Sheet 5 f o r 2 0 0 3 ra th e r th a n 2 0 0 5 , the 2 0 0 3 v e rsio n c o n tain s s tate m e n ts t o t he s ame effe ct
. See A pp. at90 ( “I f one or bot h par ent s of a c h ild a re P R C n a tio n a ls w h o h a v e n o t p e rm a n e n tlyse ttl e d in another countr y , t hen C hi na r egar ds t he chi l d as a PR C nat i onal and does notr ecogni ze anyot herci t i zens hi p t he chi l d m ay ac q u ir e a t birth, i n clud ing U

. S

. cit izen sh ip.”). 22 “ t h e [ C] o n s u l a r[ I ] n f

o r ma t i o n [ S ] h e e t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , f o rs o me purpos es at l eas t , t he C hi nes e governm ent cons i der s for ei gnb o rn c h il d ren o f C h ines e n ati o n als eq u ivalen t t o ch il d ren b o rn i n C hi na. ” I d. at1376.

5
W e r ecogni ze that , as the C our tof A ppeal s for the S ec o n d C ir cu itex p lai n ed in W an g v . B IA , 4 3 7 F

. 3 d 2 7 0 (2d C ir

. 2006) , t her e i s an i nher entt ens i on i n t he cr i t er i a sett i ng for t h t he s t andar ds for t he r evi ew of B I A deci s i ons t hatlack d et ai l ed di s cus s i on: O n th e o n e h a n d , the B IA a b u se s its d isc re tio n if i tfai l s compl et el yt o addr es s evi dence of cha nged c o u n tr yc ir c u m s ta n c e s o f f e re d b ya p e titio n e r. . .

. T he B I A s houl d demonstr at e thati thas con si dered such evidence, even i f on l yt o d i sm i ss it. In so d o in g , the B IA sh o u ld p ro v id e u s w ith m o re tha n cu rsory , s u m m aryo r co n clus o ry sta tem e n ts, so th a t w e a re a b le to d isc e rn its r eas ons fordecl i ni ng t o aff or d reli ef t o a p eti ti o n er.23 O n the o ther h an d , w e d o n o t ho ld . .

. that w h ere t he B I A has gi ven rea soned cons i der at i on t o the pe t i t i on , a nd made a de qu a t e fi nd i ng s , i tmust expr es s l ypar s e or ref ut e on the r ecor d eac h i ndi vi dual ar gum entor pi ece of evi dence offe r ed byt he p et it i on er. . . . W hil e t he B IA m ust co n side r suc h ev iden ce , it m ayd o so in su m m ary fas hi on w i t houta r evi ew i ng cour tpr es um i ng t hat i thas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on. Id. at 27 5 (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). N o tw i ths t andi n g this t en sion “[ im m igrati o n jud g es] a n d the B IA have a dut yt o expl i ci t l ycons i deranycountr ycon di t i ons e v id e n c e su b m itt e d b ya n a p p lica n t th a t m a ter ially b e a rs o n h is cl ai m , ” and “[a ] s i m i l ar , i f notgr eat er , dutyar i s es i n t he cont ext o f m o tio n s to r e o p e n b a s e d o n c h a n g e d c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s .” G uo v. G o n za les, 463 F. 3d 109, 115 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o Y ang v. G onzal es , 427 F. 3d 1117, 1 1 2 2 (8th C i r . 2005) ( “I f an a gencym akes a fi ndi ng of f a c t w ith o u t m e n tio n in g o r a n a ly z in g sig n if ica n t ev id e n c e , it s deci s i on s houl d be r econ side r ed. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted).
In Z h e n g ’s c a se th e B IA d id little m o re th a n q u o te pas s ages fr om i t s ear l i erdeci s i on i n J

- W

- S- w i t houti dent i fy i ng – l etal one di s cus s i ng – t he var i ous s t at ement s cont ai ned i n t he r eco rd befor e i tt hatZ heng s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on to re o p e n . In d e e d , the B IA d id n o t m e n tio n Z h e n g ’s a f f id a v it, t he C hangl e C i t yl et t er , t he C ons ul arI nform at i on Sheetfr om 2003, t he C om m i s s i on R epor tfor2005, the Fuj i an R egul at i on f r o m 2 0 0 2 , Wu ’ s t e s t i mo n yt o Co n g r e s s f r o m 2 0 0 4 , o rth e twoW e not e t hat t he cour t i n W ang af fi r m ed the B I A ’ s deni al of 6 t he pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen the ca se, e v en t hough the B I A ’ s deci s i on w as notm or e det ai l ed than the ana l y s i s of the B IA in Z h e n g ’s ca se. S ee 4 3 7 F

. 3 d at 27 5

. Z h en g , h o w ev er, su b m itt e d d o c u m e n ts th a t w e re n o t s u b m itt e d in W a n g , a s w e ll as a p erso n al af

fid av it , an d , that g iven the m o re e x tens ive re co rd in this c ase , w e fin d the B IA ’s cu rsoryd iscu ssion o f th e re co rd t o be an a bus e of di s cr et i on. W e a lso n o te th a t a f

ter th e p a rties f

iled th e ir b rie f

s o n th is pet i t i on t he C our to f A p p eal s forthe Seventh C i r cui tdeci ded L i n v. M ukas ey , 532 F. 3d 596 ( 7th C i r . 2008) , a ca s e thatZ heng has br ought t o our at t ent i on i n a l et t er pur s uant t o Fed. R

. A pp. P. 28( j )

. L i n di s cussed t he 2006 C ount ryR epor tforC hi na issue d in 2 0 0 7

. T h at re p o rt , h o w ev er, i s n o t part of the re co rd i n Z h en g ’s c as e. U ndoubt edl yL i n coul d be hel pful t o Z heng and he mi ghtbr i ng thatcas e t o t he B I A ’ s at t ent i on on the re m a n d a n d se e k to su p p lem e n t th e re c o rd o n th e re m a n d to inclu d e the 2 0 0 6 C o u n tryR ep o rt
. O n th e o ther h an d , w e a re aw are that the B IA d iscu ssed J-W -S - i n it s d ec isi o n o n Z h en g ’s 24 new s paperar t i cl es . M or eover, thes e document s w er e not dis cussed i n J-W -S-, t he case o n w h i ch the B IA al m ost excl us i vel y r el i ed. See J

- W

- S- , 24 I & N D ec. at189- 94. G i ven th e B IA ’s f

a ilu re to d isc u ss m o st o f th e e v id e n tiary rec o rd in Z hen g ’ s c a s e , a s wel l a s t h e c o n c l u s i o n s t h a tt h e Cou r tof A ppeal s fort he El event h C ir cui tr eac hed i n L i conce r ni ng at l eas ts om e of the document s i n t hi s cas e, w e w i l l vaca t e the B I A ’ s deni al of Zheng’ s s econd m ot i on t o r eopen hi s cas e and rem and t he m at t er t o the B IA for further proceedings. 6m o ti o n an d the 2 0 0 6 C o u n tryR ep o rtw as in ev iden ce in J-W -S -, so that itis po ssible tha t th e B IA w il l give the 2 0 0 6 C o u n try R e p o rt little w e ig h t. 25 2. E qui t abl e t ol l i ng Z hen g cont ends t hatt he t i m e l i m i t at i ons on fi l i ng a second m oti on t o reope n sho uld be e q u itab l yt oll ed in hi s case beca us e hi s at t or neydi d noti nform hi m of the hea r i ng dat e on hi s as y l um appl i cat i on and i tw as thatfai lure thatl ed t o t he di s m i s s al of the appl i cat i on on M ar ch 10, 1997. Fur t herm or e, t he appe al t hatt he s ame at t orneyfi l ed fr om the den ial o f the appl i cat i on t o t he B I A w as unt i m el y , a s hor t comi ng t hatl ed the B I A t o d en yt he appe al on D ece m ber18, 1997. I tm i ghtbe tho u g h t th at i n asm u ch as w e a re rem an d ing this case to the B IA w ith o u t r eg ard fo r to ll ing o f th e li m it ati o n s p eriod that Z h en g ’s eq u it ab le t o ll ing co n tention is m o o t. W e are sati sfied , h o w ev er, t hatt he t ol l i ng ques t i on i s not m oot beca us e i f Zheng pr evai l s on t he t ol l i ng poi nthe ul t i m at el y m i ghtobt ai n a r eopeni ng and be g ra n ted a sy lu m w ith o u t s h o w in g c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s in C h ina in ac co rda n ce w ith 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 (c)(1), ( 3 )(i i)

. T her efor e w e cons ider t he equi t abl e t ol l i ng ar gum enton t he m e ri ts
. T he B IA reje c ted th e e q u itab le to lli n g c o n ten ti on becau se i thel d thatZ heng’ s l ack of di l i gence i n pur s ui ng hi s as y l um cl ai m demonstr at ed thatt ol l i ng w as not j us t i fi ed. See M ahmood v. G onzal es , 427 F.3d 248, 252- 53 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. W e agr ee w i t h t he B IA

. I n thi s r egar d w e poi ntoutthatZ heng a c k n o w le d g e s th a t h e f o u n d o u t in S e p tem b e r 1 9 9 7 th a t h is26 at t or neyhad not advi s ed hi m of the hea r i ng dat e on hi s as y l um a p p lica ti o n a n d a lso d isc o v e re d a t th a t ti m e th a t h is f a ilu re to a p p e a r a t th e h e a rin g led th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e to d e n yh is appl i cati on foras y l um . T hen the B I A deni ed hi s appea l fr om t he di s m i s s al o f h is as y l um cl ai m beca us e i tw as unt i m el yon D ece m ber18, 1997. Y et Z heng di d notfi l e hi s or i gi nal m ot i on t o r eopen unt i l J une 17, 2002, a del ayt hatdemonstr at es t hathe w as notdi l i genti n pur s ui ng hi s as y lum clai m . H i s l ack of di l i gence cannot be gai ns ai d beca us e he had kno w n fo r over foury ear s w hen he f

i r s ts oughtt o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs tha t h is asy lum ap p li ca ti o n h ad b ee n d en ied b yrea so n o f h is fail u re to a p p e a r f

o r h is h e a ri n g . Fur t herm or e, w hen he fi l ed hi s fi r s t m ot i on t o r eopen he di d notas s er tt hathi s att orneyatt he t i m e of the as y l um appl i cat i on had b een i neff ect i ve, even though he w as bei ng r epr es ented byan att orneyw ho had notr epr es ent ed hi m w hen he fi l ed hi s uns ucce s s ful as y l um appl i cat i on. R ather , he bas ed hi s m ot i on s ol el yon h is cl ai m t hat“ther e ha[ d] been a s i gni fi cantchange i n ci r cumst ance s ” pr edi cat ed on t he bi r t h of hi s t hr ee c hi l dr en af

t ert he i m m i gr at i on j udge deni ed hi s as y l um a p p lica t i on on M arch 10 , 19 97

. A pp . at17 7. M oreove r, his at t or neyon hi s fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen, on i nform at i on and bel i ef as s er t ed, contr aryt o w hatactual l yhad happe ned, thatZ heng had appea r ed at t he hear i ng on M ar ch 10, 1997, and thathi s appea l t o t he B I A w as t i m el y . T he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s m akes i tcl eart hatZ heng w as notdi l i genti n pur s ui ng hi s as y l um appl i cat i on and w e ac cor di ngl yr ej ecthi s equi t abl e t ol l i ng cont e n t i o n . W e d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d h o w we c o u l d c o me t o any ot herr es ul t , for t he hi s t ory of hi s cas e dem ons t r at es t hat t he type of exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s j us t i fy i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng ar e not27 prese n t h er e. See H edges v. U ni t ed St at es , 404 F. 3d 744, 751 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ).
B

. C hen
T he B I A al s o denied C hen’ s m ot i on t o r eopen hi s cas e. A l t hough t he B I A began bychar act er i zi ng C hen’ s cl ai m as one bas ed on cha nged per s onal ci r cumst ances r athert han cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na, i tnevert hel es s di s cus sed the l att er q u e s t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g t o th e BI A: [ T ]h e e v id e n c e re f

lec ts c o n d iti o n s s u b sta n tially sim ilar to th o se th a t e x is ted a t th e tim e o f h is h e a rin g , w ith th e g o v e r n m e n t o f f icia lly p ro h ib iti n g th e u se o f

f o rc e to c o m p e l p e rso n s to s u b mi tt o a b o r t i o n or s t e r i l i z a t i o n , d e s p i t e s o me r epor t s of coe r ci on byl ocal author it ies, and g e n e ra llya ttem p tin g to e n f o rc e c o m p lian c e w ith th e o n e -c h ild p o licy th ro u g h th e u se o f e c o n o m ic i ncent i ves and sanc t i ons and ot heradmi ni s t r at i ve m easur es . T he r ece ntevi dence s ubm i t t ed ge n e r a l l yc o n f

i r ms a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f p r o b l e ms t hatpr evi ous l yexi s t ed.
L i ke our r ece ntdeci s i on i n [J

- W

- S- ] , [C hen] has notpr ovi ded s ufficie ntevi dence t hatany sa n c tio n s [ h e ] m a ye x p e rie n c e if h e re tu rn s to C hi na w oul d r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. T he m ere ex is t ence of a pol i cyundert he l ocal r e g u l a t i o n s o f

s t e r i l i z a t i o n i f

a c o u p l e h a s t wo chi l dr en does notd em o ns t r at e thats uch pol i cyI n t h e r e l e v a n t p a r t o f t h e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n , i td i s c u s s e d J

- W- 7 S- and M at t erof C

- C

- , 23 I & N D ec. 899 (20 0 6)

. A pp. at3. W e not e thati n a s i tuat i on l i ke t h e p resentone, w her e the e v id e n tiary rec o rd c o n tain s d o c u m e n ts th a t w e re n o t at iss u e in 28 w oul d be enf

or ced i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce byphy s i cal coer ci on, and there i s no curr entevi dence t hat coupl es r etur ni ng w i t h tw o U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen chi l dr en w oul d be s t er i l i zed. T he pol i ci es exi s t ed att he t i m e of [ C hen’ s ] h ea r i ng, and r epor t s of s om e r ece nti ns t ance s of coer ci on ar e no di ffe r ent fr om s u ch r eport s att he t i m e of the hea r i ng b e lo w . [C h e n ’s] re lian c e o n 2 0 0 6 sta tem e n ts f ro m th e N a tio n a l P o p u latio n a n d F a m ily Pl anni ng C om m i t t ee and t he Fuj i an [P] r ovi nce do no tshow t hat Fuji an P rovi nce w i l l forci b ly s t er i l i ze [ C hen] i n vi ol at i on of offi ci al pol i cyi f he i s r etur ned t o C hi na. T hus , w e do not fi nd thatt he evi d ence pr es ent ed by[C hen] r efl ect s a mat er i al

‘ change ’ s uch thatthe t i m e l i m i t at ion does not appl yt o t he pr es entm ot i on. A p p . at 3 (intern al cit ati o n s o m itted).
T he abo v e p as s age r epr es ent s the B I A ’ s ent i r e di s cus s i on o f th e q u e stio n w h e th e r C h e n sa tisf ied h is b u rd e n to d em o n str ate c h an g ed circu m sta n c es in C h ina. A s in Z h en g ’s cas e, t he B I A fai l ed t o r efe r t o m os tof the document s thatC hen s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on, w hetherexpl i ci t l yorby ci t at i on t o an ea r l i er deci s i on, i ncl udi ng hi s aff i davi t , t he l et t er 7a n e a rlier d e c isio n , m e re re f e re n c e to th a t e a r lier d e c isio n is insu ff ici en t t o w arran t ado p ti n g it s co n cl u sion s. R athe r, the B IA m us tas s es s anyevi dence that b ear s on t he ques t i ons of fa ct w hi ch i tm us tdeci de. See Y ang, 427 F. 3d at 1 1 22 ( “I f an agenc ym akes a fi ndi ng of fa ctw i t houtm ent i oni ng oranal y zi ng s i gni fi cantevi dence , i t s deci s i on s houl d be r econ sider ed. ”) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 29 fr om hi s m ot her , t he C ons ul arI nform at i on Sheetfr om 2003, t he C om m i s s i on R epor t for 2005, W u’ s t es t i m ony t o C ongr es s fr om 2 0 0 4 , t h e F u

j i a n R e g u l a t i o n d a t e d J u l y2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , a n d th e two n e w s p a p e r a rt ic le s f

ro m 2 0 0 5

. In f a c t, th e B IA ’s d isc u ss io n in C h e n ’s c a se a m o u n ts to a s er i es of conc l us or ys t at emen t s , and fa i l s t o offe reven a cur s or y r evi ew of t he re cor d. For exampl e, t he B I A s t at ed that “[Chen] has not pr ovi ded suff i ci ent evi dence t hatanys anct i ons [he] m ay exper i ence i f he r eturns t o C hi na w oul d r i s e to the l evel of per s ecut i on. ” I d. E ven t hough t he B I A m ay have be en corr ec t in i t s s um m aryconcl us i on, ther e i s no es cape fr om the r eal i t yt hati tdi d notexpl ai n w hythe evi dence thatC hen s u b m itte d w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n t.
M o reo v er, al tho u g h the B IA co n clud ed that “[ t] h e m ere exi s t ence of a pol i cyundert he l ocal r egul at i ons of s t er i l i zat i on i f a c oupl e has t w o chi l dr en does notdemonstr at e thats uch pol i cyw oul d be enf

or ce d i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce byphy s i cal coer ci on, ” and that“ther e i s no curren tevi dence thatcoupl es r etur ni ng w i t h t w o U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c hi l dr en w oul d be s t er i l i zed, ” i d. , t he B I A di d not di s cus s C hen’ s aff i davi t( w hi chRes po nd e ntha s fi l e d a l e t t er pu rs uan tt o Fe d. R. A pp . P. 8 28( j ) i n C hen’ s cas e i n w hi ch he ci t es Shao v. M ukas ey , N o. 07- 2 6 8 9 , F

. 3 d , 2 0 0 8 W L 4 5 3 1 5 7 7 (2 d C ir

. O c t. 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 ), uphol di ng t he B I A ’ s concl us i on in thatcas e thatthe pet i t i oner had notpr ovi ded s uffi ci ent evi dence t hatanyharm the pet i t i oner w oul d fac e i f he r eturned t o C hi na w oul d r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. R espo n d en tr egar ds Shao as bei ng bas ed on evi dence i dent i cal ors ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art o the evi dence C hen su b m itt e d . C e rta in ly , o n th e re m a n d re sp o n d e n t m a yb rin g th is cas e t o t he B I A ’ s at t ent i on, and the B I A i n i t s di s cus s i on of the evi dence i n C hen’ s cas e is fr ee t o cons i derShao, but r es po n d ent ’ s ci t at i on of thatcas e does notover come t he defi ci ency i n t he B I A ’ s deci s i on i n t hi s cas e. B ythe s ame t oken C h en m ay b ri n g L in v. M u k ase y an d the 20 0 6 C o u n tr yR e p o rt t hatw e di s cus s above t o t he B I A ’ s at t ent i on on t he r emand.
R es pondenti n t he s ame l ett eri n d icates t hat“[s ] ever al 30 d e sc rib e d in sta n c e s o f f o rc e d ste riliza tio n ), th e S tate Dep a r t me n t ’ s 2 0 0 5 Cou n t r yRe p o r t( whi c h th e c our ti n Li co n clud ed w as “ co n sist en t” w ith claim s o f f o rce d steri li za ti o n ), ort he C ons ul arI nform at i on Sheet fr om 2003 ( w hi ch cont ai ned st at em ents show i ng t hat, for som e pu rposes at l east , t he C hinese go vernm ent consid ers forei gn -born chil dren of C hinese nat i onal s equi val entt o chi l dr en born i n C hi na)

. G i ven the B IA ’s fa il u re to d iscu ss m o st o f the ev iden ti ary rec o rd in C h en ’s cas e, and forr eas ons par al l el t o t hos e w e di s cus s ed i n anal y zi ng Z heng’ s cas e, w e w i l l vaca t e the B I A ’ s deni al of C hen’ s m ot i on t o r eopen the ca s e and r emand t o t he B IA forfur t her proceed i ng s. 8circu itco u rt s o f a p p e a ls ha v e re ce n tl yd ef erred to the [B IA ’s], r eas onabl e det erm i nat i on . . . thatan al i en mayfi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on aft erbei ng or der ed r emoved onl y i f he does s o t hr ough t he fi l i ng of a m ot i on t o r eopen i n w hi ch he es t abl i s hes a mat er i al cha n g e i n condi t i ons i n the countyof r emoval

. ” W e a g ree w i t h thi s unr emar kabl e s t at ement , w hi ch m ere lyrestates the req u ir em en ts of 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 (c)(3)(ii ), and, as w e make cl ear , the B I A m i g htconcl ude on the r emand t hatpet i t i oner s di d nots at i s fythi s s t andar d. 31 V. CO NC L US I ON
W e thi nk i t i s i m por t ant t o poi nt out t hatbot h Z heng and C h e n a r e f

r o m F u jian P ro v in c e a n d th u s q u ite n a tu ra llyth e ir cas es focus on condi t i ons i n thatpr ovi nce. W e under s t and that co n d it ion s w ith resp ec t to l im it ati o n s o n the b irth o f c h il d ren are notuni form i n C hi na and thus the fa ct s i n t hi s cas e maynotbe repr esent at i ve o f t he si tuati on throug ho ut that cou ntry . W e al so r ei t er at e thati n r eac hi ng ourconcl us i on t hatw e w il l r emand t hes e cas es to the B I A , w e do s o excl us i vel ybyr eas on of p roc ed u ral sho rt co m ing s tha t w e f ind ex ist e d in the B IA pr ocee di ngs , and thus w e do noti m pl yt hatt he B I A r eac hed an i ncorr ect r es ul t pr edi cat ed on t he re cor ds befor e i t i n ei t hercas e. I n s hor t , t he abus e of di s cr et i on r el at es t o how t he B I A r eac hed i t s r es ul t and not t he r es ul ti t s el f. I ndeed, w e ar e w el l aw ar e that resp o n d en t con tend s tha t th e d o cu m en ts th e p eti tion ers present ed shou l d no t l ead t o t he reop ening of theirproceed i ng s. C er t ai nl y , i f the B I A agr ees w i t h t hi s cont ent i on i t i s fr ee t o s ay s o on t he r emands a s w e do not r ej ect r es pondent ’ s cont ent i ons on t h i s p o i n t
. I n v i e w o f o u r c o n c l u s i o n s we wi l l v a c at e t he32 or derof J ul y16, 2007, i n Z heng’ s cas e and the or derof J une 29, 2007, i n C h en ’s cas e and w i l l r emand t he ca s es t o t he B I A for fu rth er p roc ee d ing s co n sist en t w ith this op inion

. In p arti cu lar, t he B I A s houl d r econs i dert he appe al i n bot h pet i t i oner s ’ cas es and ma k e a m o r e compl et e ana l y s i s of the evi dence t heyhave s ubm i t t ed.