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 Third C ir c uit 10-10-2008 

# Liu v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4798

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more 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 " L iu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 373. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/373NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4798

___________ YOUNG Z HAO L I U, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 95- 872- 608) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e C har l es M . H oneym an

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

Sept ember26, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober10, 2008

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Y ongzhao Li u ( “Li u”) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill d e n y , in p a rt, an d g ra n t, i n p a rt, th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.2 I. L i u i s a forty - four - y ear - ol d nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na w ho arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es i n 2002. Shor t l yther eaf t er , he fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e mo v a l , a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e Un i t e d Na t i o n s Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e . He al l eged i n the appl i cat i on thathi s w i fe unde rw enttw o for ced abor t i ons and thathe l eft C h in a b e c a u se h e f

e a re d th a t h e w o u ld b e ste rilize d f o r v io latin g th e c o u n try ’s o n e -c h ild pol i cy . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed the appl i cat i on on Sept ember23, 2004, c o n c lu d in g th a t L iu h a d n o t m e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro v in g e lig ib ility f

o r t h e re q u e s te d re lie f. T he I J s uppor t ed hi s deci s i on byci t i ng t o a cons ul ari nves t i gat i on r eport , pr epar ed s peci fi cal l yforL i u’ s cas e, w hi ch ques t i oned the authent i ci tyof s ever al document s that L i u s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) s um m ar i l yaff

i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on on February22, 2006, and thi s C our tuphel d the ag en cy ’s de cisi o n in L iu v . A tt ’yG en . , 2 3 6 F ed . A p p ’x 7 4 4 (3d C ir . Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). O n A ugus t27, 2007, L i u s ubm i t t ed t o the B I A a pr o s e mot i on t o r eopen r emoval p roc ee d ing s, claim ing inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel an d ch an g ed circu m stan ce s. In r egar ds t o the i neff

ect i venes s cl ai m , L i u al l eged thathe w as notnot i fi ed of the exi s t ence o f th e c o n su lar re p o rt u n til th e d a te o f h is re m o v a l h e a rin g a n d , d u e to a tto rn e yn e g lec t, w a s d e p riv e d o f

a n o p p o rtu n ityto re v iew th e re p o rt a n d o b tain e v id e n c e re b u tti n g its fi ndi ngs . L i u cl ai m ed thathe di d notl earn of the s i gni fi canc e of the r eportunt i l he r ead ou r opi nion den y i ng his peti t i on for r eview i n Jun e 20 07 . T o sup po rtthe ineffecti ven ess3

claim , h e su b m itted a let ter fro m h is w ife, w h o is cu rren tl yli v ing in C h ina. In the let ter, w h ich is d a ted Ju ly3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , sh e e x p re ss e d h e r d isa g re e m e n t w ith th e f in d in g s s tate d in the c o n su lar repo rt . (A . R . at 52 -53 . ) L iu a lso c laim e d in th e m o tio n to re o p e n th a t th e re h a d b e e n a c h a n g e in ci r cumst ance s m at er i al l yaff ect i ng hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um . I n part i cul ar , he al l eged that l ocal offi ci al s confr ont ed hi s w i fe a nd des tr oy ed herbus i nes s on A pr i l 23, 2007, aft er s om eone i n the comm uni tyr eport ed t o author i t i es thatL i u had made ant i - governm ent re m a rk s d u rin g tele p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith h is w if e . H e a lso a lleg e d th a t th e se o f f icia ls m a d e th re a ts a g a in st h im a n d h is w if e . H e su p p o rte d th e c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s c laim w ith a “ lette r o f

re q u e st” th a t h e h a d w ritten , an d a n o th e r le tter f ro m h is w if

e , d a ted Ju ly 9 , 2 0 0 7 . (A . R . at 57 -58 , 7 6 -77 . ) O n D ece m ber7, 2007, the B I A i s s ued an or derdeny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen. T he B I A d e t e r m i n e d th a tth e m o t i o n w a s u n t i m e l y b e c a u s e i tw a s f i l e d m o r e th a n n i n e ty d a ys aft erentryof the fi nal or derof r emoval , and ther e w as no bas i s forequi t abl e t ol l i ng of the d e a d lin e . F u rth e rm o re , the B IA n o ted th a t th e in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c laim w a s n o t p re se n ted in co m p li an ce w ith the re q u ir em en ts st ated in M att er o f L o za d a, 19 I& N D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 1988) , and thatL i u had nots how n pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof the al l eged i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e . In a d d re ss in g th e c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s c laim , the B IA f o u n d “ n o b a sis to gr anthi s unt i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen hi s pr ocee di ngs t o cons i derhi s new cl ai m fi r s tr ai s ed atthi s t i m e of a ddi t i onal per s ecut i on of hi s w i fe i n C hi na. ” ( A . R . at5. ) L i u, pr ocee di ng4

p ro s e , p e titio n s f

o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n .

II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . See B or ges v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 3 9 8 , 4 0 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). O u r re v iew is lim ited to th e B IA ’s o rd e r d e n y in g th e m o tio n to r eopen. See St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405- 06 ( 1995) ; N ocon v. I N S, 789 F. 2d 1028, 1032- 33 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on and w i l l notdi s turb the B I A ’ s deci s i on unl es s i tw as “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , or co n tr aryto law . ” B o rge s, 4 0 2 F . 3 d at 40 4 (cit ati o n o m itted). T he B I A corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatthe i neff ect i venes s cl ai m w as unt i m el y , s i nce Li u f i l e d h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n mo r e th a n n i n e tyd a y s a f t e rth e o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l b e c a me fin al on F eb rua ry2 2 , 2 0 0 6 . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(C )(i ); 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2); s ee a l s o 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 47) ( B ) ( s t at i ng thator derbecomes fi nal upon aff i r m ance by B IA o r e x p ira tio n o f

tim e to se e k re v iew b yB IA ). F u rth e rm o re , the B IA d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng thatL i u di d notes t abl i s h hi s ent i t l ementt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the ni nety - daydeadl i ne. See M ahmood v. G onzal es , 427 F. 3d 248, 252- 53 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (sta tin g th a t eq u itab le to lli n g is o n lya v a ilab le w h e re p e tit io n e r h a s a c ted w ith d ili g e n c e in pur s ui ng hi s cl ai m s ) . L i u att empt ed t o j us t i fythe l at e fi l i ng byexpl ai ni ng thathe di d not lea rn o f th e sig n if

ica n c e o f th e c o n su lar re p o rt u n til w e d e n ied h is p e tit io n f o r re v iew in Ju n e 2 0 0 7 . H o w e v e r, th e re p o rt’s s ig n if ica n c e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p a re n t to h im in Sept ember2004, w hen the I J ci t ed t o thatdocumenti n hi s or al deci s i on. E ven i f theU n d e r L o z a d a , an a lien m u st (1 ) su p p o rt h is in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c laim w ith a n a f f id a v it 1 a ttes tin g to th e re lev a n t f a c ts; (2 ) in f

o rm c o u n se l o f

th e a lleg a tio n s a n d p ro v id e h im w ith an o p p o rtu n ityto resp o n d ; and (3) f il e a co m p lai n t w ith the a p p rop ri ate d isci p li n ary author i t i es orexpl ai n w hyhe di d notfi l e s uch a c om pl ai nt . Z heng v. G onzal es , 422 F. 3d 9 8 , 1 0 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ing L o za d a, 19 I& N D ec . at 63 9 ). E ven though L i u di d notexpl i ci t l yar gue i n hi s pr o s e mot i on t o r eopen thatthe 2 change d ci r cumst ance s cl ai m w as cogni zabl e under§ 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) , w e bel i eve the i s s ue w as adequa t el yr ai s ed bel ow , as the fi l i ngs of a pr o s e al i en ar e t o be cons trued l i ber al l yforexhaus t i on purpos es . See V i zca rr a- A y al a v. M ukas ey , 514 F. 3d 870, 873 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 5 i neff ect i venes s cl ai m w er e t i m el yr ai s ed, the B I A pr oper l yr ej ect ed i ton the gr ounds that L iu d id n o t m a k e a n e f

f o rt to c o m p lyw ith a n yo f th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts s tate d in L ozada . See Lu v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 132- 34 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( s t at i ng thatappl i cat i on o f L o za d a’s thre e-p ron g testis ge n era ll ya re aso n ab le ex erc ise o f th e B IA ’s discre ti o n ). 1 A s f o r th e c laim b a se d o n c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s in C h in a , the B IA a p p e a rs to h a v e d e n ie d th a t c la im a s u n tim e ly w ith o u t c o n s id e ri n g th e a p p lic a b ility o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii), w h ich p ro v id e s th a t an a lien m a yf ile a m o tio n to re o p e n a t an ytim e if it r ai s es an as y l um cl ai m “bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the countryof [r emoval ] . . . 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 orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous hear i ng. ” L i u s uppor t ed hi s change d 2 c irc u m sta n c e s c laim w ith p re v io u slyu n a v a ilab le e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g re c e n t ev e n ts in C h in a . S p e c if

ica lly , h e su b m itt e d d o c u m e n ts in d ica tin g th a t lo c a l o f f icia ls d e stro y e d h is w i fe’ s bus i nes s on A pr i l 23, 2007, and thatthe att ack w as pr om pt ed, atl eas ti n part , by ac ti o n s tak en b yL iu in the U n it ed S tat es. M o reo v er, L iu allege d that h e f ea red fu ture6

per s ecut i on as a r es ul tof thi s confr ont at i on. B eca us e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on fr om the or der deny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen thatthe B I A cons i der ed w hetherL i u had s at i s fi ed the condi t i ons forr eopeni ng under§ 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) , w e w i l l r emand t o the B I A t o m ake that det erm i nat i on i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . See I N S v. V entur a, 537 U . S. 12, 16- 17 ( 2002) ( per cu ri am ). III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l deny , i n part , and gr ant , i n part , the pet i t i on for r evi ew , and w i l l r emand t he mat t ert o the B I A forfurthercons i der at i on.