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 1-6-2010 

# Li an Zh ang 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 . 08-4563

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 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 i an Zh an g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2102. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2102NOT 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. 08- 4563 L I AN YI NG Z HANG,

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 099- 605- 209) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

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

N ovember18, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary6, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM L i an Y i ng Z hang pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the O ct ober27, 2008 deci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nalZ hang gave bi r th t o herdaught er , Z oe C hen, i n 2006. 1 2 o r d e ro f r e mo v a l . 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 yh e rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. Z hang, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thouti ns pect i on i n A pr i l 2000. I n 2005, w hen s he w as pr egnantw i th hers econd c hi l d, Z hang appl i ed for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) , cl ai m i ng thats he fe ar ed r eturni ng t o C hi na bec aus e s he had a C hi nes e s on ( now i n hi s tw ent i es w ho r emai ned i n C hi na) and w oul d s oon have a s econd c hi l d i n vi ol at i on o f C h in a ’s o n e -c h ild f

a m ilyp lan n in g p o licie s. Z h a n g f iled a to m e o f

d o c u m e n ts in 1 su p p o rt o f

h e r c laim , inc lu d in g b irth c e rtific a tes f o r h e r c h ild re n , F u

jian P ro v in c e B irth C ontr ol R egul at i ons and Fuj i an Pr ovi nce a dm i ni s tr at i ve opi ni ons and dec i s i ons fr om 2003 r egar di ng the tr eatm entof for ei gn- born chi l dr en forfami l ypl anni ng purpos es i n the ci t i es of C hangl e and Fuzhou i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, num er ous art i cl es , aff i davi t s ( i ncl udi ng the af fi davi tof demographerD r . J ohn A i r d) , tr ans cr i pt s of C ongr es s i onal t es t i m ony , t he St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2002 “Tra vel T i ps , ” and the St at e D epart m entC ountryR eporton H u m an R igh ts Pra cti ce s in C h ina f o r 20 0 5 (“2 0 0 5 C o u n tryR ep o rt ”). F o llo w in g a h e a rin g , the IJ d e n ied a ll relie f , fin d in g th a t Z h a n g f

a iled to demonstr at e thats he hel d a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on. Speci fi cal l y , the I J found thatal though Z hang had e s t abl i s hed thr ough t es t i m ony , aff i davi t s , and otherevi dence t hat sh e h a d a g e n u in e su b

jec tiv e f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n u p o n h e r re tu rn to C h in a , sh e f a iled to s h o w th a t s h e h a d a n o b je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le f

e a r t h a t s h e w o u ld b e f

o rc ib ly ste ri liz e d .3

T he I J not ed Zhang’ s evi dence purpor t i ng t o s how thats he w oul d have t o r egi s t erher A m e ric a n -b o rn c h ild in C h in a , inc lu d in g th e a f f id a v it o f o n e in d iv id u a l, un k n o w n to Z hang per s onal l y , w ho r eturned t o Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w i th tw o for ei gn- born chi l dr en and w as for ced t o under go s t er i l i zat i on. R el y i ng on the St at e D epart m ent ’ s Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s forC hi na for2005 ( “2005 Pr ofi l e”) , and an opi ni on l ett erdat ed J anuary7, 2007, fr om J ul i et a V al l s N oy es , D i r ect orof the St at e D epart m ent ’ s O ffi ce of M ul t i l at er al and G l obal A ffa i r s ( “2007 O pi ni on L ett er ”) , the I J deci ded that“the mat t erof w hether [Zhang’ s ] U . S. chi l d w i l l even be count ed aga i ns thert ot al forfami l ypl anni ng purpos es i s , atbes t , di s put ed. ” The I J w as unper s uaded thatZ hang w oul d be s i ngl ed outfor persecut i on i f she returned to C hina. T he IJ foun d the affi dav i t s of Z han g’s cousi ns, a ttes tin g th a t th e yh a d b e e n f o rc ib lyste rilize d a f

ter h a v in g tw o c h ild re n , to b e lar g e ly i rr el evantbeca us e thes e i ndi vi dual s di d nothave f or ei gn- born chi l dr en. T he I J al s o found thatZ hang fa i l ed t o s how thatFuj i an Pr ovi nce e ngaged i n a patt ern orpr act i ce of

for ced s t er i l i zat i on i n cas es l i ke herow n. T he I J found the bul k of Z hang’ s document aryevi dence t o be unper s uas i ve bec aus e i tw as out dat ed, addr es s ed circu m stan ce s in a d iffe ren t pro v ince , h ad b ee n d iscred it ed (as in the ca se o f th e A ir d A ff idav it ), o r be ca u se itd id n o t t en d to sh o w that F u ji an P rov ince en g ag ed in m an d atory forced st eri l i zat i on or abort i on as opp osed to asses si ng “soci al com pen sat i on fees” against v io lato rs o f

f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licy . W h ile th e IJ a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e S tate D epart m ent ’ s 2002 “Tra vel T i ps ” documents t at ed thatA m er i can- born chi l dr en w oul d beI n th e o p i n i o n , th e I J mi s t a k e n l yr e f e rr e d t o th e 2 0 0 6 P r o f

i l e o f As y l u m Cl a i ms 2 a s “ E x h ib it 1 0 .” 4 tr eat ed as C hi nes e ci t i zens i f thei rC hi nes e par ent s had no i m m i gr at i on s t atus i n the U ni t ed St at es , s he not ed thatthe documentdi d notaddr es s s peci fi cal l yw hetherthe chi l dr en w oul d be “c ount ed” a gai ns tthe par ent s forfami l ypl anni ng purpos es . R el y i ng agai n on the 2005 Pr ofi l e and the 2007 O pi ni on L ett er , the I J found that , i n anyevent , t he r ecor d evi dence “poi nt ed t o a mar ked dec r eas e i n enfor cementof the fa m i l ypl anni ng p o licyth ro u g h f

o rc e d a b o rtio n a n d /o r ste riliza tio n a n d d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t th e re is p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f

ste rilizin g in d iv id u a ls w h o re tu rn to C h in a a f ter h a v in g c h ild re n in the U n it ed S tat es.” (IJ O p inion , JA -15 . ) T h e B IA ad o p ted a n d af firm ed the IJ’s 2 d e c i s i o n . Z h a n g f

i l e d th i s t i me l yp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l o f

th e BI A u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a ). A b d u lai v . A sh c ro f t, 23 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “[ W ]h e n th e B IA b o th a d o p t s th e f

i n d i n g s o f

th e I J a n d d i s c u s s e s s o me o f th e b a s e s f

o rth e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , we have a uthor i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew both deci s i ons undera s ubs t ant i al evi dence sta n d a rd . S e e A b d ill e v . A sh c ro f t, 24 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). U n d e r th is defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , w e w i l l uphol d the fi ndi ngs of the B I A “unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” I d. at484. T o q u a lifyf

o r a sy lu m , an a p p lica n t m u st d e m o n stra te, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, a w e ll-I n M att erof J - W - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 185 ( B I A 2007) , the B I A di s cus s ed at 3 l ength the St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2005 and 2006 Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and i t s 2005 and 2006 C ountr yR eport s on C hi na. T he 2006 St at e D epart m entA s y l um C l ai m s Pr ofi l e and C ountryR eportar e noti n evi dence i n Z hang’ s cas e. 5 founded f

earof per s ecut i on bas ed on both a s ubj ect i vel ygenui ne fe arof per s ecut i on and an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyof per s ecut i on. See I N S v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 430- 31 ( 1987) . T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cant m us tdemonstr at e “acl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on. ” See Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1 2 3 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (qu o ti n g IN S v . S tevic, 46 7 U . S . 4 0 7 , 4 3 0 (19 8 4 )). I n herpet i t i on forr evi ew , Z hang cl ai m s thatthe I J m i s char act er i zed the evi dence , w hi ch, Z hang as s ert s , es t abl i s hed thats he w oul d be s ubj ectt o for ced s t er i l i zat i on i f s he r eturned t o C hi na w i th herA m er i can- born chi l d. W e di s agr ee. A ccor di ng t o the 2005 Pr ofi l e and the 2007 O pi ni on L ett erupon w hi ch the I J and the B I A r el i ed, bi r th pl anni ng pol i cyi n C hi na i s es t abl i s hed nat i onal l y ; the enf or cementof the pol i cyi s l eftt o the pr ovi nces and l ocal vi l l ages and ca n varyw i del yfr om pr ovi nce t o pr ovi nce a nd fr om vi l l age t o vi l l age. ( See J A - 1366; 1410. ) T he St at e D epart m entacknow l edges thatfor ced st eri l i zat i on and abo rt i on s, w hich vi olat e nati on al l aw , con t i nu e t o b e do cum ented. (J A 3 at1367- 68; 1410. ) A s forenfor cementof bi r th pl anni ng pol i cyi n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, how ever , al though “publ i c and otherpr es s ur e” maybe us ed t o encour age c om pl i ance w i th bi r th pl anni ng l aw s , U ni t ed St at es offi ci al s “di d notfi nd anycas es of phy s i cal for ce empl oy ed i n connec t i on w i th abort i on ors t er i l i zat i on” i n the l as tt en y ear s . ( 2005 Pr ofi l e,6

J A at1370; 2007 O pi ni on L ett er , J A at1410 ( “R egar di ng the al l eged e xi s t ence of an offi ci al governm entpol i cym andat i ng the s t er i l i zat i on of one pa r tnerof coupl es thathave gi ven bi r th t o t w o chi l dr en, U . S. offi ci al s i n C hi na ar e notaw ar e of s uch a pol i cyatei ther the nat i onal orpr ovi nci al l evel ”) ) . I n s um , w e conc l ude thatthe I J ’ s and B I A ’ s deci s i ons ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . Z hang al s o pr ot es t s thatthe as s es s m entof har s h and exorbi t ants oci al compensa t i on fee s al one cons t i tut es per s ecut i on i n hercas e. T he B I A i m pl i ci t l yr ej ect ed Z hang’ s ar gum entw hen i tconcl uded thats he fa i l ed t o s how a w el l - founded f earof p e rse c u tio n a n d a f

f irm e d th e IJ’ s re m o v a l o rd e r. T h e B IA h a s a d d re ss e d e c o n o m ic sa n c tio n s in F u

jian P ro v in c e a n d h a s f o u n d th a t, at m o st, a n a lien w o u ld f a c e “ m o d e ra te economi c i m pact ” notamount i ng t o per s ecut i on. I n r e J - W - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 185, 191 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ); S h a o v . M u k a se y , 5 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 8 , 1 6 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (f in d in g th a t th e B IA in J - W - S- r eas onabl yconcl uded thatthe ec onom i c r ew ar ds and pena l t i es us ed t o i m pl ement the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cyi n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce di d notnece s s ar i l yamount t o “phy s i cal or m ent al coer ci on”) . H er e, Z hang off er ed no evi dence i ndi cat i ng thatFuj i an Pr ovi nce w oul d i m pos e more s tr i ngentand puni t i ve ec onom i c s anct i ons i n hercas e than the m oder at e s anct i ons Fuj i an Pr ovi nce norm al l yi m pos es on i t s r es i dent s w ho vi ol at e the fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . T he St at e D epart m entdocument s on r ecor d i ndi cat e onl ythat Fuj i an Pr ovi nce i m pos es economi c s anct i ons w her e for ei gn- born chi l dr en ar e r egi s t er ed as perm anentr es i dent s . ( See 2005 Pr ofi l e, J A at1374 ; 2007 O pi ni on L ett er , J A atIn M a tter o f J-W -S -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 1 8 5 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ), th e B IA d isc u ss e d a t len g th 4 the St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2005 and 2006 Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and i t s 2005 and 2006 C ountryR eport s on C hi na. T he 2006 St at e D epart m entA s y l um C l ai m s Pr ofi l e and C ountryR eportar e noti n evi dence i n Z hang’ s cas e. A m ong otherevi dence s he cl ai m s the B I A fai l ed t o cons i der , Z hang emphas i zes 5 D r . A i r d’ s aff

i davi tand ac company i ng m at er i al s . ( Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef a t18- 20. ) I n Y u v. A t t orneyG ener al , 513 F. 3d 346, 348- 49 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , w e agr eed w i th the B I A thatt he S tate D e p a rtm e n t’s P ro f ile o f A sy lu m C laim s a n d its C o u n tryR e p o rt o n C h in a , b o th iss u e d in 2 0 0 5 , ten d e d to c a st d o u b t o n th e u til ityo f D r. A ird ’s f

re q u e n tly -c ited a f

f id a v it, w hi ch pr ovi ded onl ygener al i zed s t at ement s r egar di ng C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es an d d id n o t spe cifica ll yad d ress the issue o f c o u p les return ing to C h ina w ith fo reign -bo rn chi l dr en. 7 1411. ) T hus , ther e i s s i m pl ynothi ng i n the r ecor d thatw oul d compel us t o concl ude that

4 econ om i c sanct i on s, i f any , that Fuji an P rovi nce m i gh ti m po se on Z han g w ou l d b e so ex o rbit an t as t o am o u n t t o p erse cu ti o n . C f. L i v. A tt ’yG en . , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 8 (3d C ir . 20 05 ) ( “[T ]he del i berat e i m po si t i on of sev ere econo m i c dis adv antage w hich threat ens a p eti ti o n er’s li fe o r free d o m m ayco n sti tute p erse cu ti o n . ”). N ext , Z hang cont ends thatthe B I A fai l ed t o pr oper l ycons i derthe document s s he s ubm i t t ed atthe i m m i gr at i on hear i ng i n s uppor tof hercl ai m . C ontr aryt o heras s ert i on, 5 th e B IA “ is n o t re q u ire d to ‘w rite a n e x e g e sis o n e v e ryc o n ten tio n . W h a t is re q u ire d is m e re lyth a t itc o n sid e r th e iss u e s ra ise d , an d a n n o u n c e its d e c isio n in ter m s s u f f icie n t to e n a b le a re v iew in g c o u rt to p e rc e iv e th a t ith a s h e a rd a n d th o u g h t an d n o t m e re ly r e a c t e d. ’ ” Fi l

j a v. G on z a l e s , 44 7 F. 3d 24 1, 25 6 ( 3d Ci r . 20 06 ) ( qu ot i ng M a ns ou rv. I N S, 2 3 0 F . 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 8 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted)). H ere , the B IA acknow l edged the vol um i nous r ecor d i n Z hang’ s cas e and pr oper l yconcl uded thati tw asW e not e thattw enty - one of the thi r tydocument s cont ai ned i n the “ne w 6 backgr ound m at er i al ” appe art o be i n the r ecor d al r eady . ( C om par e bac kgr ound- i ndex, J A at90- 97, w i th i ndi ces of document s s ubm i t t ed atthe r emoval hear i ng, J A at1662- 1 6 6 5 & 1 2 6 4 -6 5 .) 8 i ns uffi ci entt o carr yherbur den of pr oof. Z hang al s o ar gues thatthe B I A fai l ed t o r emand hercas e t o the I J t o cons i der se v e ra l d o c u m e n ts th a t Z h a n g su b m itt e d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. T h e B IA d e c lin e d to cons i derthe addi t i onal document s , not i ng thati t s r evi ew w as “l i m i t ed t o the r ecor d as w as cons t i tut ed bef

or e the I m m i gr at i on J udge. ” See 8 C. F. R . §§ 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i ) and ( i v) ( “Exceptfort aki ng admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of comm onl yknow n fac t s s uch as curr ent e v e n ts o r th e c o n ten ts o f o f f icia l d o c u m e n ts, th e B o a rd w ill n o t en g a g e in f a c tf in d in g in the cour s e of de ci di ng appea l s . ”) . W e ca nnotfaul tthe B I A fornotcons i der i ng a r emand to th e IJ f

o r c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e a d d iti o n a l d o c u m e n ts, a s Z h a n g d id n o t f ile a m o tio n to r emand, and ment i oned “r emand” onl yonce i n herbr i ef be for e the B I A . See Ti pu v. 6 I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( “D i s cr et i onarydeci s i ons of the B I A w i l l notbe di s turbed unl es s theyar e found t o be ‘ arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ’ ”) ( quot i ng C hun C hung v. I N S, 602 F. 2d 608, 612 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ) . M or eover , Z hang has not expl ai ned ( ei therbefor e us ort o t he B I A ) w hythe addi t i onal document s s he s ubm i t t ed on appea l t o the B I A w er e notpr evi ous l yavai l abl e orhow the evi dence , i f cons i der ed, w oul d change the r es ul ti n hercas e. C f. 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) ( “A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs s hal l notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappea r s t o the B oar d thatevi dence s oughtt o be9

offe r ed 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 at th e f o rm er h ea ri n g . ”). I n s um , w e ca nnots aythatthe evi dence compel s a conc l us i on contr aryt o thatof the B I A . See Y u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 513 F. 3d 346, 348- 49 ( hol di ng thatSt at e D epart m ent C ountryR eport s cons t i tut ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng that p e tit io n e r’s f

e a r o f f o rc e d ste riliza tio n u p o n re tu rn in g to C h in a w a s n o t o b jec tiv e ly r eas onabl e) ; C hen, 376 F. 3d at223 ( r equi r i ng as y l um appl i cantt o demonstr at e by “cr edi bl e, di r ect , and s peci fi c evi dence an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s forthe cl ai m ed f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n ” ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.