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 7-7-2010 

# Na Zh a o 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 . 09-4396

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 " Na Zh a o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1003. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1003NOT 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. 09- 4396

___________ NA Z HAO, 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 B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 079- 433- 717)

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

J ul y7, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y7, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM N a Zhao, a ci t i zen of

C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) o r d e rd e n y i n g h e rmo t i o n t o r e o p e n . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.2 I Z hao ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2002 and s oughtas y l um and r el at ed r el i ef. She al l eged thats he fa ced pe r s ecut i on i n C hi na forherm ember s hi p i n an unr egi s t er ed C hr i s t i an chur ch. I n s uppor tof herr eques tforr el i ef, s he al l eged thats he w as beat en by p o lice f o r h e r re lig io u s p ra c tice s a n d th a t sh e n a rro w lye sc a p e d a rre st d u rin g a p o lice ra id o n a n u n d e rg ro u n d c h u rc h m e e tin g a t w h ich se v e ra l ch u rc h -g o e rs w e re tak e n in to cus t ody . I n J une 2002, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed r el i ef, and the B I A di s m i s s ed h e r su b se q u e n t ap p e a l. I n N ovember2008, Z hao fi l ed w i t h t he B I A a mot i on t o r eopen. T he B I A deni ed the mot i on as unt i m el y , hol di ng t hatZ hao fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thatchange d condi t i ons in C h in a m e t th e sta n d a rd f o r e x e m p tin g h e r f

ro m th e tim e lim itatio n s a p p lica b le to m o tio n s to re o p e n . Z h a o f iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew . W e g ra n ted h e r u n o p p o se d m o tio n to r emand t he pr ocee di ngs s o t he B I A coul d cons i deraddi t i onal evi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s . See N a Zhao v. A t t ’ yG en. , C . A . N o 09- 1001 ( or derent er ed J ul y21, 2 0 0 9 ). O n r emand, t he B I A cons i der ed the D epart m entof St at e’ s I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous F re e d o m R e p o rt f

o r C h in a f

o r 2 0 0 7 a n d 2 0 0 8 , the C o u n tryR e p o rts o n H u m a n R ig h ts Pr act i ces for2007, t he 2007 A nnual R epor tfr om the C ongr es s i onal - E xecut i ve C o m m is s io n o n C h in a , a n d th re e a rt ic le s d e s c ri b in g p o lic e ra id s o n u n re g is te re d c h u rc h e s . Z hao al s o s ubm i t t ed a l ett erfr om hers i s t er , w ho l i ves i n C hi na, i n w hi ch hers i s t er3

al l eged thats he w as arr es t ed and de t ai ned fors even da y s forpart i ci pat i ng i n an u n d e rg ro u n d c h u rc h . T h e B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t Z h a o f a iled to d e m o n stra te a c h a n g e in countrycondi t i ons t hatw oul d m at er i al l yaff ectherel i gi bi l i t yforas y l um . Z hao then fi l ed a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f

orabus e of di s cr et i on. See Fadi ga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 488 F. 3d 142, 15 3 (3d C i r. 20 07 ). U nd er that s t and ard, w e w i l l no trever se the B oard’s decis i on un l ess “i ti s arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” I d. ( quot i ng Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). A “mot i on t o r eopen s hal l be fi l ed w i t hi n 90 day s of the dat e of e ntr yof a f i nal a d m in is tr a tiv e o rd e r o f

re m o v a l.” IN A § 2 4 0 (c )( 7 )( C )( i) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )( 7 )( C )( i) ]. H o w e v e r, th e 9 0 -d a ytim e lim itatio n d o e s n o t ap p lyto a m o tio n to re o p e n if th a t m o tio n is bas ed on “c hanged c ount r ycondi t i ons ar i s i ng i n t he countr yof nat i onal i t y. . . i f s uch evi dence i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and w oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or pr es ent ed att he pr evi ous pr ocee di ng. ” § 240( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( i i ) . A l t hough a mot i on t o r eopen need r es tonl yon p rim a fa c ie el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um , thi s r equi r es “the appl i cantt o pr oduce o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e sh o w in g a ‘re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d ’ th a t h e c a n e sta b lish [ th a t h e is ent i t l ed t o r el i ef] . ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 563 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at175) . M or eover , cumul at i ve evi dence demonstr at i ng thatcondi t i ons as s er t ed4

i n an al i en’ s or i gi nal as y l um appl i cat i on per s i s ti s notevi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s fo r pu rpo ses o f § 2 4 0 (c)(7)(C )(i i) . S ee Z h ao v . G o n za les, 4 4 0 F . 3 d 4 0 5 , 4 0 7 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n deny i ng Z hao’ s m ot i on t o r eopen, the B I A r eas oned thatthe evi dence s ubm i t t ed o n rem an d sh o w ed that there w as n o m aterial ch an g e in C h ina’s stan ce tow ard unr egi s t er ed C hr i s t i an chur ches . R ather , the B oar d concl uded, the countr yr epor t s and otherdocument at i on demonstr at ed thatthe condi t i ons Z hao compl ai ned of i n heras y l um appl i cat i on per s i s t ed. Z hao cha l l enges the B I A ’ s anal y s i s on s ever al gr ounds , onl ytw o of w hi ch mer i tdi s cus s i on. Fi r s t , Z hao ar gues t hatt he B I A comm i t t ed a pr ocedur al err orbeca us e i tdi d not expr es s l ycons i derpor t i ons of the C ongr es s i onal - E xecut i ve R epor tand the I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R epor tt hatnot e an i ncr eas e i n t he per s ecut i on of unr egi s t er ed chur ches , part i cul ar l yl eadi ng up t o the 2008 O l ym pi c G ames i n B ei j i ng. A l t hough the B IA d id n o t spe cifica ll ym en ti o n thes e p o rt ion s o f th e re p o rt s, w e d o n o t th ink the B o ard abus ed i t s di s cr et i on. T he B I A m us tcons i derthe evi dence pr es ent ed t o i t , buti tneed not e x p re s s ly p a rs e e a c h p ie c e o f e v id e n c e s u b m itte d in its o p in io n . S e e Z h e n g v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 4 9 F .3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c itin g W a n g v . B IA , 4 3 7 F .3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 5 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )) . H er e, the B I A expr es s l yi dent i fi ed the evi dence Z hao pr es ent ed, and ci t ed s ever al of the countryr eport s t o s uppor ti t s concl us i on thatno fundament al change i n condi t i ons occurr ed i n C hi na.5

N e x t, Z h a o c o n ten d s th a t th e B IA e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t sh e f a iled to demonstr at e cha nged condi t i ons i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. Z hao r el i es on “per s onal evi dence ” s he s ubm i t t ed – s peci fi cal l y , a s t at ementi n heraff i davi tthats ever al hous e chur ch att en d ee s w ere arrested an d ab u sed in 2 0 0 8 , the lett er f rom h er sist er reg ard ing the s ist er’s a rr e s t , a n d l e t t e r s f

r o m a n a c q u a i n t a n c e a n d a n u n r e g i s t e r e d c h u r c h i n h e rh o me t o wn s t at i ng thatt he governm enthas r ece nt l yi ncr eas ed i t s s uppr es s i on of under gr ound chur ches . H ow ever , t he fa ctt hatm ember s of unr egi s t er ed chur ches have be en det ai ned d o e s n o td e mo n s t r a t e c h a n g e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s : Zh a o c i t e d h e rn a r r o w e s c a p e f r o m a s i m i l arr ai d i n s uppor tof heror i gi nal as y l um appl i cat i on. A l t hough the l ett er s fr om her acqua i nt ance and chur ch s uppor tan ar gum entthatpr obl ems have i ncr eas ed, theydo not hol d anygr eat erw ei ghtt han the countr yr epor t s , w hi ch s t at e thatcondi t i ons i n C hi na re m a in p o o r, b u t e x c lu d e F u jia n P ro v in c e f

ro m th e lis t o f

s ig n if ic a n tly a f

f e c te d a re a s . T h u s, sh e h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n w a s “ a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, or c o n tra ryto la w .” B eca us e w e agr ee w i t h t he B I A thatZ hao fa i l ed t o demonstr at e cha nged ci r cumst ance s t o w arr antr eopeni ng herpr ocee di ngs , w e nee d notcons i derherot her ar gum ent s r egar di ng t he B I A ’ s anal y s i s . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for r e v i e w.