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 Third C ir c uit 3-25-2010 

# Zhe ng 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 . 07-3582

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_2010

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 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 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 2010 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 " Zhe n g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1640. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1640NOT 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- 3582

___________ F ANG R ONG Z HE NG, 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 095- 367- 172) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

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

M ar ch 24, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 25, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM F ang R on g Z hen g p et i t i on s for r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ ( “B I A ”) deni al of herm ot i on t o r eopen de por t at i on pr ocee di ngs and fi l e a s ucce s s i ve2

a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n . I . Fang R ong Z heng i s a 32- y ear - ol d ci t i zen of C hi na, w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed i n M ar ch 2001. I n M ar ch 2002, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce f i l ed a N ot i ce t o A ppearand pl ace d Z heng i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . Z heng conc eded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. I n s uppor tof herappl i cat i on, s he ar gued thatbeca us e of the bi r th of herchi l d i n the U ni t ed St at es , i n vi ol at i on of C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cypr ohi bi t i ng pr egnanc youtof w edl ock, s he fe ar ed thats he w oul d be for ced t o have a n abort i on and under go s t er i l i zat i on i f s he bec ame pr egnant agai n upon r eturni ng t o C hi na. I n M ar ch 2004, aft era hea r i ng on the mer i t s , the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed Z heng’ s appl i cat i on. Fi ndi ng di s cr epanc i es and omi s s i ons betw een Zheng’ s as y l um a p p lic a tio n a n d h e r t e s tim o n y , th e IJ u ltim a te ly co n c lu d e d th a t Z h e n g w a s n o t c re d ib le . Z h en g ap p ea led th e IJ’s d ec isi o n an d , o n Ju ly2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA af firm ed the IJ’s d e c isio n . Z h e n g d id n o t f ile a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f

th e B IA ’s d e c isio n w ith th is C o u rt. Ov e rs e v e n t e e n mo n th s l a t e r , o n J a n u a ry1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , Z h e n g f i l e d wi th th e BI A a m ot i on t o r eopen a nd t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on. She as s ert ed thather m ot i on w as exemptfr om the ni nety - dayt i m e r es tr i ct i on governi ng m ot i ons t o r eopen b e c a u s e h e rmo t i o n wa s b a s e d o n th e “ c h a n g e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s ” e x c e p t i o n i n I NA §W e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on t o decl i ne t o i nvoke i t s s ua 1 s pont e author i tyt o r eopen a cas e under8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( a) . See C al l e- V uj i l es v. A sh c ro f t, 32 0 F .3 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t su c h a u th o rity“ is c o m m itt e d to [the age ncy ’ s ] unfett er ed di s cr et i on. T her efor e, the verynatur e of the cl ai m r ender s i tnot s u b je c t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w ” ) ( q u o tin g L u is v . IN S , 1 9 6 F .3 d 3 6 , 4 0 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 3 208( a) ( 2) ( D ) . A l t ernat el y , s he r eques t ed thatthe B I A r eopen he rcas e s ua s pont e under the di s cr et i on gr ant ed t o i tunder8 C FR § 1003. 2( a) . Speci fi cal l y , Z heng cont ended that if sh e re tu rn e d to C h in a , sh e w o u ld b e su b jec t to ste riliza tio n u n d e r C h in a ’s o n e -c h ild p o lic yb e c a u s e s h e h a d g iv e n b ir th to a s e c o n d c h ild s in c e h e r r e m o v a l h e a ri n g . T he B I A deni ed herm ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on i t s det erm i nat i ons thatherm ot i on w a s u n tim e lya n d th a t th e e v id e n c e sh e su b m itt e d — n a m e lyth e b irth o f h e r se c o n d c h ild

— di d notr efl ectchange d ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na orexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s s uch that re o p e n in g w a s w a rra n ted . T h e B IA a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t th e e v id e n c e Z h e n g su b m itt e d d id notr efl ectchange d ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na t o w arr antexer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der hers ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on. Z heng t i m el ypet i t i oned thi s C our tt o r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on. II. We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p u r s u a n tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We re v iew th e B IA ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e a n d th e d e n ial o f th e m o tio n to reo p en fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 (3d C ir . 1 2002) . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s ent i t l ed t o “br oad def er ence . ” Ezeagw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 409 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hus , i n or dert o s ucce ed on the pet i t i on forr evi ew , Z heng4

m u st s h o w th a t th e B IA ’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n w a s a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, orc o n tra ryto l aw . See Ti pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . Z heng has fai l ed t o m ake s uch a s how i ng. III . T he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen be caus e i tw as unt i m el yand bec aus e Zheng di d notm eetthe exc ept i on forchange d ci r cumst ance s under8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) or e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s u n d e r 8 C F R § 1 0 0 3 .2 (a ). T h e m o tio n w a s u n d isp u tab ly unt i m el yas i tw as fi l ed overs event een mont hs aft erthe B I A deni ed Zheng’ s appea l . See 8 C .F .R § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 2 ) ( m o tio n s to re o p e n m u s t b e f ile d w ith in 9 0 d a y s o f

a f in a l o rd e r) . Z h e n g d id n o t co n tes t th e tar d in e ss o f h e r m o tio n ; in ste a d sh e a ss e rte d th a t itf e ll w ith in the exc ept i on of 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) , w hi ch perm i t s r eopeni ng “bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the countryof nat i onal i ty. . . 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 h e a ri n g .” I n s u p p o r to f

r e o p e n i n g , Z h e n g s u b mi t t e d ( 1 ) a n a f f i d a v i t ; ( 2 ) e v i d e n c e o f

h e rtwo c h ild re n ’s b irth s in 2 0 0 1 a n d 2 0 0 6 ; (3 ) a 2 0 0 5 C o u n tryR e p o rt f o r C h in a ; (4 ) F u z h o u C ity r egul at i ons on fami l ypl anni ng, dat ed A pr i l 1996; ( 5) 2004 t es t i m onyof A s s i s t ant S e c re tar yo f

th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t; an d (6 ) a n A p ril 2 0 0 6 N e w Y o rk T im e s a rticle di s cus s i ng i ndi vi dual s w ho w er e r eturned t o C hi na and f or ci bl ys t er i l i zed. ( See A . R . 9- 206. ) T he B I A found thatherevi dence — namel ythe bi r th of hertw o chi l dr en i n theW e n o te th a t in Z h e n g ’s m o tio n to th e B IA , sh e su b m itt e d e v id e n c e re late d to 2 condi t i ons i n C hi na, buts he di d notar gue thatherm ot i on w as bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na, i ns t ead c oncedi ng thatthe mot i on w as bas ed on herchange d p erso n al circu m stan ce s. T h u s, w e d en ythe p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , d esp it e the B IA ’s cu rsory and conc l us orydeni al . See Zheng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 549 F. 3d 260, 268 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng thatthe B I A m us texpl i ci t l ycons i deranycountrycondi t i ons evi dence that m a te ri a lly b e a rs o n a n a p p lic a n t’ s c la im ). 5 U ni t ed St at es — di d notcons t i tut e “c hanged c i r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the countryof n a tio n a lity ” a s re q u ire d b y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(7 )(C )(ii) a n d 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii) to w a iv e th e n in e ty -d a yd e a d lin e f o r m o tio n s to re o p e n . T h is c o n c lu sio n c o m p o rts w ith ourpr ece dent , s ee Li u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , and w e fi nd that the B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng Z heng’ s unt i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen. 2 Z heng’ s ar gum entthats he i s ent i t l ed t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on i s al s o for ecl os ed byourdeci s i on i n L i u, 555 F. 3d at150- 51. W e have hel d thati n cons i der i ng a n a p p lic a tio n to f

ile a s u c c e s s iv e a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n , th e B IA s h o u ld a p p ly 8 U .S .C . § 1229( a) ( 7) ( C ) ( i i ) , w hi ch r equi r es evi dence t o demonstr at e “c hanged c ountrycondi t i ons ar i s i ng i n the countryof nat i onal i ty . ” I d. Z heng ar gues thats uch an i nt erpr et at i on vi ol at es the equa l pr ot ect i on cl aus e of the Fi fth A m endment , i n thati thol ds al i ens w ho have a l r eadys ubm i t t ed a pr i oras y l um appl i cat i on t o a more s tr i ngents t andar d than otherw i s e s i m i l ar l y - s i tuat ed al i ens w ho have ne verfi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on. I n L i u, w e a c k n o w led g e d Z h e n g ’s a rg u m e n t, se e id . at 1 5 1 ; h o w e v e r, w e f o u n d th a t to in terp re t 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) otherw i s e w oul d ci r cumvent8 U . S. C . § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A ) and

“ w o u ld n o t h o n o r C o n g re s s ’ p u rp o s e in th e IN A to a v o id a b u s e o f th e s y s te m .” Id .6

F o rth e a b o v e 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.