2006 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 9-21-2006 

# Lin v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4509

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y 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 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
" L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 426. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/426T h e H o n o ra b le J o h n R . G ib so n , S e n io r C irc u it Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * f o r th e E ig h th C irc u it. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4509 BI YI NG L I N, 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 fr om 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 N o. A 95- 862- 281) A r gued: J une 29, 2006 B efore: B A R R Y , V A N A N T W E R P E N and G IB S O N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: Sept ember21, 2006) F o r P eti ti o n er: L a w O f f ice o f R ich a rd T a rz ia R ich a rd T a rz ia Gr e g o ryM a r o t t a ( AR GUE D) 99 M i l l er s G r ove R oad B el l e M ead, N J 08502-2-

F o r R e sp o n d e n t: C hr i s t opherJ . C hr i s t i e, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney L e a h A. Byn o n , As s i s t a n tUn i t e d S t a t e s At t o rn e y( AR GUE D) O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 970 B r oad Str eet , Sui t e 700 N ew ark, N J 07102 L y l e D . J ent zer , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 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

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT J O H N R . G I B SO N , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i onerB i Y i ng L i n, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the
or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s deny i ng herappl i cat i on foras y l um and
w i thhol di ng of r emoval , i n w hi ch s he cont ended thati f s he r eturned t o C hi na w i th her th re e A m e ric a n -b o rn c h ild re n , the g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld h a v e h e r ste rilize d a g a in st h e r w ill beca us e s he had mor e chi l dr en than al l ow ed underC hi na' s one- chi l d popul at i on- contr ol pol i cy . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe B oar d' s anal y s i s i n the or deri s t oo abbr evi at ed for us t o revi ew i t , w e rem and for further proceedings. L i n came t o t hi s countr yw i thoutdocument at i on, and once her e, s he mar r i ed and gave bi r th t o t hr ee c hi l dr en w ho ar e al l U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens . ( A l though i ti s out s i de the
r ecor d, w e under s t and fr om or al ar gum entthatL i n now has a fourth chi l d. ) R emoval-3-

pr ocee di ngs w er e comm ence d agai ns tL i n; s he conc edes r emovabi l i tybutcl ai m s as y l um a n d w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l o n th e g ro u n d th a t sh e f e a rs th a t if s h e tak e s h e r c h ild re n w ith h er, she w il l be s teri li ze d ag ains t her w il l, w h ich w o u ld co n sti tute p erse cu ti o n u n d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ). T h e I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e wh o h e a r d L i n ' s c a s e d e n i e d h e ra p p l i c a t i o n o n two gr ounds . Fi r s t , he hel d t hatL i n coul d avoi d per s ecut i on i n C hi na byl eavi ng herchi l dr en i n the U ni t ed St at es and thatw hetherL i n w oul d be per s ecut ed thus r es t ed w i thi n her
c o n tr o l. S e c o n d , h e h e ld th a t L in h a d n o t s h o w n a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n . T h e B o a rd a d o p ted a n d a f f irm e d th e IJ's d e c isio n in a n e q u iv o c a l o p in io n . W h ile the B oard did no texp l i ci t l yend orse the IJ' s r easoning thatL i n co uld be requir ed to cho se betw een t aki ng herA m er i can- born chi l dr en w i th hert o C hi na and a voi di ng s t er i l i zat i on, the B oar d di d s ay : "[ W ] e have pr evi ous l yhel d i n the cont extof s us pens i on of depor t at i on, thatan al i en i l l egal l yi n the U ni t ed St at es does notgai n a fa vor ed s t atus by the bi r th of a c hi l d i n t hi s countr y . " I n r e B i Y i ng L i n, A 95- 862- 281 ( B . I . A . Sept . 19, 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) . T h e Bo a r d c i t e d M a t t e ro f P i l c h , 2 1 I &N De c . 6 2 7 , 6 3 2 ( B. I . A. 1 9 9 6 ) , a s u s p e n s i o n o f

d e p o r t a t i o n c a s e o n w h i c h th e I J h a d r e l i e d i n c o n c l u d i n g th a tL i n 's opt i on of l eavi ng the chi l dr en coul d negat e the r eas onabl e fe arof per s ecut i on. T he g o v e rn m e n td o e s n o tu r g e u s t o u p h o l d th e B o a r d 's d e c i s i o n o n th i s th e o ry. T he B oar d al s o hel d t hatL i n had notborne herbur den of pr oof thats he w as r eas onabl yl i kel yt o be s t er i l i zed: [T]he B oar d cannotconcl ude bas ed upon the evi dence of r ecor d thatthe res po nd ent has a w el l -foun ded fear of st eri l i zat i on or pers ecuti on becau se-4-

s h e m a yn o w b e c o n s id e re d in v io la tio n o f th e p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l la w . I ndeed, i ti s s pecul at i ve atbes tas t o w hetherthe r es pondentw i l l be s ubj ect t o an ycoerci ve fa m i l yplanni ng program up on her r eturn t o C hina as a cons equenc e of the bi rth of herthr ee mi norchi l dr en w ho ar e nat i ves and cit izen s o f th e U n it ed S tat es. . . . T h ere is al so insu ff ici en t do cu m en tary evi dence of r ecor d t o convi nce the B oar d thatther e i s anyl i kel i hood that the r es pondentw i l l be s t er i l i zed bythe C hi nes e author i t i es forthe bi r th of the s ubj ectm i norchi l dr en. L i n, s l i p op. at1. W e r evi ew the B oar d' s fi ndi ngs of fa ctunderthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d,
m eani ng thattheyar e conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o fi nd t o the contr ary . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ; I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 4 8 1 n .1 (1 9 9 2 ). W e m u s t d e c id e th e p e titio n o n ly o n th e a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd b e f o re u s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( A ). L i n' s evi dence thats he w oul d be l i kel yt o under go s t er i l i zat i on i ncl uded ane cdot al evi dence of a f

r i end and tw o r el at i ves w ho w er e s t er i l i zed a ft ergi vi ng bi r th t o m or e than
o n e c h ild ; ev id e n c e o f

lo c a l b irth c o n tro l re g u latio n s f ro m F u jian p ro v in c e a c c o rd in g to
w h ich L in h erse lf w o u ld b e o u t of co m p li an ce ; and the a ff idav ito f a reti red d em o g rap h er, John S hiel ds A i rd, that the C hinese bi rth co ntr ol pol i cyi s l i kelyt o b e app l i ed to C hinese nat i onal s r eturni ng hom e fr om abr oad w i th chi l dr en born w hi l e theyw er e aw ay . T he g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t L in ' s e v id e n c e is o u t o f d a te o r h a s o th e r d e f

e c ts. P e rh a p s a ll thi s evi dence coul d be expl ai ned aw ayors how n t o be i ns ubs t ant i al . H ow ever , t aken a t fac e val ue, the evi dence m akes a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e foras y l um . See G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 566 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he B oar d di d notdi s cus s the evi dence orgi ve anyr eas on w hyi thad r ej ect ed i t . "W hen an a gencym akes a fi ndi ng of fa ctw i thoutm ent i oni ng oranaly zi ng si gn i fi cant evi den ce, i t s deci si on shou l d b e reconsi dered. " Z hen g v . G on zal es,

415 F. 3d 955, 963 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; acc or d C hen v. G onzal es , 417 F. 3d 268, 272- 73 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( ci t ed w i th appr oval i n C ham v. A t t or ney G e n ., 4 4 5 F .3 d 6 8 3 , 6 9 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )) . M o re o v e r, th e B o a rd d id n o t re lyo n c o m p e tin g e v id e n c e su c h a s th e S tate D epart m entPr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and C ountryC ondi t i ons , forthe verygood r eas on thatno s uch evi dence w as i n t he r ecor d. T hi s abs ence of count ervai l i ng evi dence di s t i ngui s hes L i n' s cas e fr om I n r e C - C - , 23 I & N D ec. 899, 903 ( B I A 2006) , i n w hi ch the B oard co ncluded that A i rd' s affi dav i t(w hich has been w i delyused in such cases) w as l ess p e rs u a s iv e th a n c o u n te rv a ilin g e v id e n c e . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand forfur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on.