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 6-29-2010 

# Q in 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 . 09-3455

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 " Qin L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1103. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1103NOT 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- 3455

___________ QI N 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 P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 077 174 598 I m m i gr at i on J udge: 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)

J une 28, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, G R E E N A W A Y A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 29, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Q i n L i n, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ” or“B oar d”) , w hi ch deni ed herm ot i on t o r eopen a nd r e ma n d . We wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2

L i n w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n 1999 forbei ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es w i thouthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed. She conce ded r emovabi l i t y , buts oughtas y l um a n d re late d re lief

b a se d o n h e r a lleg a tio n th a t sh e a n d h e r h u sb a n d w e re p e rse c u ted in C hi na due t o t he countr y ’ s coer ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pr act i ces . A n I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng t hatL i n w as notcr edi bl e. T he B I A aff i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on i n February2003. I n M ayof thaty ear , L i n fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen a nd r emand for adj us t m entof s t atus bas ed on the appr oved l aborpet i t i on of her“s econd” hus band i n t he U n ite d S ta te s . T h e B IA g ra n te d th e m o tio n a n d re m a n d e d to th e IJ f o r h e a ri n g s . O n re m a n d , L in f

irst trie d to p ro v e th a t sh e h a d b e e n d iv o rc e d f ro m h e r h u sb a n d in C hi na, butl at eradmi t t ed thats he had i n fac tneverbeen mar r i ed i n C hi na and thats he had m a d e u p th e sto rya t th e u rg in g o f th e sn a k e h e a d s w h o sm u g g led h e r o u t o f C h in a . L in also so u g h t r eli ef

b ase d o n h er a ll eg ati o n that sh e w o u ld b e f o rciblysteri li ze d if sh e w ere to b e re tu rn e d to C h in a b e c a u s e s h e a n d h e r h u s b a n d n o w h a d tw o U .S .-b o rn c h ild re n . T he I J found thatheras y l um cl ai m w as unt i m el y , and thats he di d notm eetherbur den for w i thhol di ng of r emoval orpr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) b e c a u s e th e p o s s ib ility th a t s h e w o u ld b e p e rs e c u te d a n d /o r t o rt u re d w a s to o s p e c u la tiv e . T he I J al s o found thatherappl i cat i on w as fr i vol ous . R egar di ng the appl i cat i on for adj us t m entof s t atus , t he I J not ed thatL i n w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e of f r aud and m i s r epr es ent at i on, and thats he w oul d need a w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i t y . H avi ng deni ed h er h u sb an d ’s ad

justm en t of

statu s ap p li ca ti o n , the IJ f o u n d that L in d id n o t qu ali fyfo r aT he B I A , how ever , gr ant ed Li n’ s hus band’ s m ot i on t o r emand forcl ar i fi cat i on on t he 1 IJ’ s d e c isio n to d e n ya d ju stm e n t in th e e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n ; ita p p e a rs h e w a s u lti m a tely able t o ad

j usthis st atus. 3 w ai ver , beca us e s he di d nothave a qual i fy i ng r el at i ve. O n appea l , t he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of r el i ef, and al s o deni ed Li n’ s m ot i on t o r emand bas ed on the bi r t h of a thi r d chi l d. L i n fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of that 1 deci s i on. W e hel d: ( 1) w e l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derL i n’ s chal l enge t o t he fi ndi ng that h er a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n w as u n ti m ely ; ( 2 ) th e d o cu m en ts L in h ad su b m itted w ere i ns uffi ci entt o compel a r eas onabl e adj udi cat ort o fi nd i tw as m or e l i kel ythan nots he w o u ld b e p e rse c u ted if

re tu rn e d to C h in a ; (3 ) th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h e r m o tio n to re m a n d b a se d o n h e r a ss e rtio n th a t th e b irth o f a th ird c h ild w o u ld su b ject he r t o fo rce d steri li za ti o n ; and (4) the B IA ap p li ed the a p p rop ri ate leg al st an d ard in d e n y in g L in ’s a p p lica tio n f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s, a n d w e lac k e d ju risd ictio n to cons i derthe pr opr i etyof i t s di s cr et i onarydeni al . W e not ed, how ever , thatthe B I A had f a i l e d t o r e v i e w w h e t h e rt h e I J p r o p e r l yf o u n d L i n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n t o b e f r i v o l o u s . We r emanded forcons i der at i on of w hetherthe fr i vol ous nes s fi ndi ng s houl d s t and. L i n v. A t t ’ yG en. , N o. 07- 2231, 2008 W L 2083139 ( 3d C i r . , M ay19, 2008) . O n O ct ober29, 2008, the B I A vaca t ed the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatL i n’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as fr i vol ous , but not ed thatL i n r emai ned r emovabl e and i nel i gi bl e forr el i ef pur s uantt o t he pr i ordeci s i ons o f t h e I J a n d BI A. I n J anuary2009, L i n fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen a nd r emand. L i n cl ai m ed that4

beca us e the B I A had vac at ed the fr i vol ous nes s fi ndi ng, and bec aus e herhus band w as now a perm anentr es i dent , s he w as now el i gi bl e t o adj us thers t atus . She al s o agai n cl ai m ed el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T , bas ed on c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in C h in a . L in su b m itt e d : heraff i davi t , a new appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus , a new appl i cat i on fora w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i t y , the 2007 C ount r yR epor ton C hi na, the 2004 stat em en t of

A ssist an t Se cre taryD ew ey , the 2 0 0 4 test im o n yo f T . K u m ar, document s t hatpurpor tt o be fr om the Peopl e' s G overnm entof Ti ngj i ang T o w n , M a w e i D istric t, F u z h o u C ity , sta tem e n ts a n d id e n tityd o c u m e n ts from -herfat her, hu sband , and fri end s i n the U nit ed S t at es, and l et t ers , i dent i t ycar ds , bi r t h contr ol i nform at i on car ds , and s t er i l i zat i on cert i fi cat es fr om a fr i end and acl as s m at e i n C hi na. B I A deci s i on, A . R . 3- 4. T he B I A not ed thatthe document s fr om C hi na had notbeen authent i cat ed pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1287. 6, and r ecogni zed thatthi s C our thas hel d that fai l ur e t o fol l ow t hatr egul at i on s houl d notl ead t o aut om at i c exc l us i on of the evi dence , butthatthe al i en s houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ove authent i ci t yi n anotherm at t er . A . R . 4, ci t i ng L i u v. A s hcr oft , 372 F. 3d 529, 533 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; and Lei a v. A s hcr oft , 393 F. 3d 427, 433- 34 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he B I A found, how ever , thatL i n “had f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h t he authent i ci tyof herfor ei gn document s i n anym anner . ” A . R . 4. T h e B o a rd f

o u n d th a t L in h a d n o t sh o w n c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s th a t w o u ld o v e rc o m e th e tim e b a r f o r a n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , an d th a t h e r e v id e n c e w a s “ in a d e q u a te t o demonstr at e a r eal i s t i c cha nce thats he ca n es t abl i s h herel i gi bi l i t yforr el i ef f r om re m o v a l o r p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e [ C A T ] d u e to C h in a ’s f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic y .” A .R . 4 . T he B I A found thatal t hough s he w as no l ongers t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e foradj us t m entofW e a g a in lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e B IA ' s d e c isio n th a t L in ' s a sy lu m c laim is 2 u n tim e ly an d th a t it d o e s n o t m e e t a n ye x c e p tio n s to th e tim e lin e s s re q u ir e m e n t. T arraw all yv . A sh cro ft, 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 5 sta tu s b a se d o n a f

riv o lo u s a sy lu m f

in d in g , sh e h a d “ f

a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t sh e m e rits s u c h r e l i e f

i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . ” I d . L i n f

i l e d a 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 ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e B IA ’s d e c isio n d e n y in g L in ’s m o tio n to r eopen a nd r emand. T her e ar e atl eas tthr ee i ndepende ntgr ounds on w hi ch the B I A m ay 2 denya mot i on t o r eopen, t w o of w hi ch ar e pert i nenther e. “[W ] hen the B oar d oran I m m i gr at i on J udge deni es r eopeni ng on pr i m a fa ci e ca s e gr ounds , the ul t i m at e dec i s i on s houl d be r evi ew ed foran abus e of di s cr et i on, w hi l e fi ndi ngs of fa cts houl d be r evi ew ed fo r sub stan ti al ev iden ce . ” S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). “[ I]n cas es i n w hi ch the ul t i m at e gr antof r el i ef i s di s cr et i onary( [i ncl udi ng] . . . adj us t m entof s t atus , butnotw i t hhol di ng of deport at i on) , the B I A m ayl eap a head, as i tw er e, overt he tw o thr es hol d conce r ns ( pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and ne w evi dence /r eas onabl e expl anat i on) , and s i m pl ydet erm i ne thateven i f theyw er e met , the movantw oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o t he d iscreti o n aryg ran t of

reli ef. ” K o rytnyu k v . A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 8 2 -83 (3d C ir . 2005) . Such “l eap a head” deci s i ons ar e r evi ew ed foran abus e of di s cr et i on. I d. T he B oar d abus es i t s di s cr et i on onl yw her e the ul t i m at e dec i s i on deny i ng r eopeni ng w as arb itrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr aryto law . S ee T ipu v . IN S , 2 0 F . 3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A s not ed, t he B oar d found thatL i n’ s evi dence w as “i nadequa t e t o demonstr at e a6

r eal i s t i c cha nce thats he ca n es t abl i s h herel i gi bi l i t yforr el i ef f r om r emoval orpr ot ect i on underthe [CA T ] due t o C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . ” A . R . 4. T he B oar d found that the evi dence L i n s ubm i t t ed had notbeen a uthent i cat ed i n anyw ay , and thats he had not s h o w n th a t a n ye c o n o m ic s a n c tio n th a t m ig h t b e a p p lie d w o u ld a m o u n t to p e rs e c u tio n . G i ven the fa ctt hatL i n pr evi ous l ys ubm i t t ed a c om pl et el yfi ct i t i ous as y l um cl ai m , the B oar d di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng thatthe evi dence L i n s ubm i t t ed di d not s uppor ta pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forr eopeni ng. W e furt herfi nd thatt he B oar d di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng L i n’ s m ot i on to re o p e n f

o r w a iv e r o f

in a d m iss ib ili tya n d a d

ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s. T h e B IA p re v io u sly stat ed that “the n u m ero u s fra u d u lent m isr ep rese n tat ion s” L in m ad e b ef o re the IJ con st i tuted “a com pell i ng adv ers e factorm i t i gati ng heav i l yagainsta fav orabl e exerci se of di s cr et i on i n hercas e. ” A . R . 176. T he B oar d di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n hol di ng thatL i n di d notm eetherbur den of de m ons t r at i ng thats he mer i t s favor abl e di s cr et i on. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.