P urs uan t t o Fed eral Ru le o f Ap pel lat e P roce du re 43 (c)(2 ), A tt orn ey Gen eral Mi chael B. 1 Mukasey is substi tuted automatically for f ormer A ttorney

Gene ral Albe rto R. Gonzales as the responde nt in this case . The Honor able Gr eg ory

W. C arma

n of the United States Court of International Trade , 2 sitti ng by desig nation. 05

- 60 35

- ag Xiao Kui L in v. Mukasey 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 4 Aug ust Term 2007 5 6 7 Submit ted: J anuar y 3, 2008 Dec ided: J anuar y 22, 2009 8 L ast Supplemental Br ief F iled: March 21, 2008 9 10 Docke t No. 05-6035-a g 11 12

_____________________________________ 13 14 XI AO KUI L I N, 15 16 Petitioner , 17 18 -v.- 19 20 MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF T HE UNI TED STATES, THE 1 21 UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, MI CHAEL CHERTOFF , SECR ETARY OF 22 THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURI TY, and TH E DEPARTMENT OF 23 HOMEL AND SECURI TY, 24 25 Re sp on de nts

. 26

_____________________________________ 27 28 Be fore : SOTOMAYOR and L I VI NGSTON, Circuit Judges , and CARMAN, Judge

. 2 29 30 Petition for reviewof the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’s de nial of asylum and withholding 31 of re moval on the g round that petitioner had f ailed to show a likelihood that he w ould be sterilized 32 forc ibly

upon his return to China for ha ving mor e than one U.S.-born child. 33 Petition gra nted and matter

rema nded.2 1 DOUGLAS B. P AY NE, ES Q., New York, Ne w York, for 2 Petitioner

. 3 4 L ARRY L UDKA, A ssistant United St ates Attorney , for 5 DONAL D J . D e G A B RIE L L E , JR., United States A ttorney for 6 t h e S outhern District of T exas, Corpus Christ i, Texas, for 7 Re sp on de nts

. 8 9 L I VI

NGSTON, Circuit Judge : 10 Petitioner Xiao Kui L in, a citi zen of China, seeks r eview of the Octobe r 17, 2005 dec ision 11 of the Boa

rd of I mmigration Appe als (“B I A”) adopting and af firming the May

26, 2004 decision of 12 I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) Rober t Weisel deny ing L in’s applications for a sy lum and withholding of 13 remova l. In re Xi ao KuiLin , No. A 72 473 382 (B .I .A. Oct. 17, 2005) , aff’g No. A 7 2 473 382 14 (I mmig. Ct. N.Y. City May 26, 2004). B eca

use we find err ors in the BIA’s order and ca nnot predict 15 with confidenc e that the B I A would re ach the same r es u l t o n re mand abse nt these er rors, we are 16 compelled to g rant the pe tition, vacate the O ctober 17, 2005 order , and remand t he matter to the B I A. 17 18 Back ground 19 L in hails from the city of Fouzhou in the Fujian Province of China. H e ente red the United 2 0 St a te s u n la

w f u ll y in 1 9 9 2 an d u n s u c c e s s f u ll y a p p li e d f o r a s y lum b a s e d o n an a ll e g e d f e ar th a t he 21 would be per secute d for his political a ctivism if he returne d to his home country . Thoug h he wa s 22 order ed to be de ported in 1994, L in remaine d in the United States, and in 2002 moved for a stay of 2 3 re m o v a l an d t o r e o p e n a s y l u m p r o c e e d i n g s b a s e d o n c h an g e d p e r s o n a l c i r c u m s t an c e s , n a m e ly his 24 marr ia g e and

the bir th o f a da ug hte r. I n a

n ame nd e d asy

lum a pp lic a tio n, L in a

ve rr e d th a t he and

his 25 wife intende d to have a nother c hild, but that if they returne d to China and attempted to have a se cond 26 c hil d th e re , th e pr e g na nc y e ith e r w ou ld be a

bo rt e d f or c ibl y , o r L in o r h is w if

e wo uld be fo rc e d to3 1 underg o a sterilization procedur e. The motions t o reope n and for a stay of re moval wer e g rante d, 2 and the I J held a he aringon L in’s amende d asylum application on May 26, 2004. 3 L in testified at the hea ring that he wa s marrie d on October 2, 2000, in New B edfor d, 4 Massac husetts, and that he now ha d two U.S.-born daug hters, the first born on Ma rch 27, 2001, a

nd 5 the sec ond on May 17, 2003, subsequent to the fili ng of hi s amende d asylum application. His wife 6 wa s p re se nt a

t th e he ari ngwi th b oth

c hil dr e n, bu t di d not te sti fy . L in s ub mitte d h is d a ug hte rs ’ b ir

th 7 cer

tificates a nd his Massac husetts marria g e certificate i ndicating that he had marrie d on September 8 24, 2000, and that the mar riag e ce rtificate had bee n issued and re corde d on October 2, 2000. 9 L in testified that he and his wife intended to ha ve another child, and that they hoped to have 10 a boy

to car ry on the fami l y n am e. He reiter ated his fe ar, how ever , that he and his wife would be 11 arr e ste d a

nd ste ri lize d fo rc ibl y fo r havin g vio late d fa mil y pla nn ing po lic ie s if the y we re to re tur n to 12 Chi na . L in tes ti fi e d th a t hi s mo the r h a d b e e n s te ri lize d f or c ibl y in C hin a a ft e r t he bir th o f h is 13 y oung er br other, that his sister-in-law had been sterilized a s well, and that his sist er ha d been f ined 14 fo r v iol a tin g a

F uji an Pro vin c e fa

mil y -p lann ing po lic y . I n an a tte mpt to co rr ob or a te the se c la ims , 15 L in of

fer ed: (1) a

Birth Control Oper ation Certificate re flec ting that his mother ha d been ste riliz ed 16 in 1979; (2) a c ertifica tion from the Commit tee of Min A n Villag e that his mother had violated the 17 birth control policy o f Fujian Province by having three children a

nd that the “Villag e Committ ee 18 took her to under g o a fe male sterilization procedur e,” A pp. 129; (3) af

fidavits from his mother and 19 her sister- in-law stating t h at af t er L in’s mother g ave bir th to her third child, she wa s arr ested a nd 20 fo rc e d to un de rg o invo lun tary ste ri lizatio n; ( 4) a

re c e ipt re fl e c tin g that hi s si ste r h a d p a id a fi ne in 21 1998 “for

missing a fe male examination,” App. 126; and ( 5) the F amily Planning Stipulations for 22 Fujian Province

.4 1 Th e I J den ie d th e a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum

and wi thh old ing of re mov a l on th e g ro un d th a t L in 2 ha d f

a ile d to e sta

bli shthat if he r e tur

ne d to Chi na , h e wo uld

be fo un d in

vio latio n o f a

fa mil y 3 planning policy

and ther efor e sterilized f orcibly

. The I J expressed doubt that L in “will ever return 4 to China as part of a n intact family ” because “[n] o testimony was offere d today by [L in] that if he 5 re tur

ns to C hin a , he wi ll re tur

n with his wi fe

. . . [o]r

fo r t hat matte r, tha

t hi s c hil dr e n w ill re tur

n w ith 6 h im

. ” A p p . 3 8

. T h e I J w e n t o nto “ qu e s ti o n [] th e c lo s e n e s s o f [L in ’ s ] r e lati o n s h ip [w it h h is w if e ], 7 and w h et h er t hey

even live tog ether ,” pointing to the f act that the ma

rriag e ce rtificate and L in’s 8 asylum application indicated that L in w as marrie d on September 24, 2000, wher eas L in te stified that 9 he had ma

rried on O ctober

2, 2000. App. 39. 10 The B I A af firmed t h e I J ’s dec ision on October 17, 2005. It concluded that L in had not 11 establi s hed a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution “based upon the birth of his United States citizen 12 children” b ec ause “[t] here is no national policy to steriliz e Chinese c itiz ens who have broke n the 13 po pu la tio n c on tr ol l aw b y vir tue of havin g c hil dr e n in oth e r c ountr ie s. ” Ap p. 2. Th e B I A state d th a t, 14 in a

ny e ve nt, “ [i]t is un c le ar w he the r [L in’ s] U nit e d St ate s cit ize n c hil dr e n w ill a c tua lly re tur n to 15 China with him,” and “[t]here is also insufficient doc umentary evidenc e of r ecor d to convince the 16 Boa

rd that there is any

likelihood that [ L in] will be sterilized by the Chinese author ities.” Id. 17 L in now petitions for revie w of the B I A’s Oc tober 17, 2005 orde r. 18 195 1 Discussion 2 “W h er e, as here, the BIA adopts the I J ’s re asoning and off ers a dditional commentary , we 3 revie w the dec ision of the I J as supplemented by the B I A.” W

ala v. Muk

asey , 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d 4 Cir . 2 00 7) . We re vie w f a c tua l f ind ing s f or “ su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e ,” and

wi ll n ot d ist

ur b th e m “ un le ss 5 any

rea sonable ad

judicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 6 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); Dedji v. M ukasey , 525 F.3d 187, 191 (2d C ir. 2008). We will vacate a nd rema nd for 7 new findings, however, if the ag ency ’s re asoning or its fac tfinding pr ocess wa s sufficiently flawe d. 8 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 335 ( 2d Cir. 2006). 9 As y lum is available to an individual who establishes that he is a “re fug ee,” 8 U.S.C. § 10 11 58 (b )( 1) ; Xu Sheng Gao v

. U.S. Attorney Ge n. , 500 F.3d 93, 97 ( 2d Cir. 2007), meaningthat he 11 is unable or unwilling to return to his native country beca use of persec ution or a we ll-founded f ear 12 of per secution on ac count of ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or 13 political opinion. Xu Sheng Gao , 500 F.3d at 97 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) ). A pe rson “who 14 ha s b e e n for c e d to abo rt a pr e g na nc y or to und e rg o invo lun tary ste ri lizatio n, or

. . . w ho ha s a

we ll 15 founded fea

r that he or she will be f

orce d to underg o such a pr ocedur e” qua lifies as a r efug ee. See 16 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) . I n ad d i t i on, we have obser ved that “[f]orced ste riliz ation or abor tion 17 threatens [a petitioner’s] life or fre edom” a nd is a basis for withholding remova l when a pe titioner 18 establishes that it is more likely than not that he or she will be subjected to such a proc edure and the 19 g overnme nt cannot esta blish chang ed countr

y conditions. Y

i Long Y ang v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 133, 2 0 1 4 1 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( al t er at i o ni n o r i g i n a l ) ( qu o t i n g Cao He Lin v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 428 F.3d 21 391, 399 (2d Cir. 2005)). 226 1 The B I A g ave thr ee r easons f or deny ing L in’s applications for asylum and withholding of 2 remova l, none of whic h withstands sc rutiny

. The finding that L in f ailed to show that he would re turn 3 t o C h i n a w i t h h i s w i f e an d c h i l dr e n an d t h u s c o m e w i t h i n t h e a mb i t o f a f o r c i b l e s t e r i l i z a t i o np o l i c y, 4 a ssumin g on e e xiste d, wa s not sup po rt e d by su bs tanti a l evi de nc e . L in ap pe are d at his he ari ngwi th 5 his wif

e an d c h il dr e nan d

te s ti f ie d th a t b o th h e an d h is w if e w e r e “ th ink in g o f

p o s s ib ly h aving 6 ano the r c hil d” to “ c on tin ue our fa mil y name .” Ap p. 82

. Whe n a sk e d wh a t he be lie ved wou ld 7 ha pp e n if he we re fo rc e d to re tur

n to Chi na , L in st ate d th a t “ we will be arr ested [and] steriliz ed.” 8 Id. (e mph a sis a dd e d) . L in d id not state sp e c if ic a lly that he inte nd e d to tak e his c hil dr e n to Chi na if 9 he re tur

ne d, and his wi fe did

no t te sti fy

a t th e he a ri ng . B ut t

he re c or d on whi c h the a g e nc y ba se d it s 10 finding that L in would return to China alone was plainly inadequate. 11 I n “question[ing] the closeness of [L in’s] relationship” with his wife, A pp. 38, the I J relied 1 2 s o l el y o n t h e fa ct t h at L i n t es t i fi ed t h at h e wa s m arri ed o n Oc t o b er 2 , 2 0 0 0 , wh i l e hi s m arri age 13 cer

tificate a nd asylum application indicated that the a ctual date of his we dding c ere mony was 14 September 24, 2000. The I J conclude d that “[n] o explanation for this anomaly ex i s t s.” App. 39. 15 But the ma

rriag e ce rtificate shows that October 2, 2000 was the date the c ertificate was r ecor ded by 16 the Ne w B e df

or d to wn c le rk . T he I J fai led to a dd re ss why it w ou ld b e unre a so na

ble fo r L in t o 17 believe that the date on which his ma rriag e cer tificate w as filed with a g overnme ntal ag ency was the 18 date on whic h he officially beca me m arr ied. Henc e, the I J overlooke d a plausibl e explanation for 19 L in’s confusion that wa s appar ent in the rec ord evidenc e that the I J relied upon to c onclude that no 20 such explanation exi sted. See Latif i v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 103, 105 ( 2d C i r. 2005) (r ejec ting I J ’s 21 adver se cr edibility finding wher e I J failed to e valua t e plausible e x planations for inc onsistencies); 22 Tia n- Y

on g Ch e n v . I

NS , 3 59 F .3 d 1 21 , 127 (2 d Cir. 20 04 ) (n oti ng that re mand may be a pp ro pr iatePortions of the I J ’s ana ly sis of L in’s relationship wit h his wife and c hildren may be re ad 3 to r a ise oth e r l e g a l is su e s, inc lud ing(i ) whe the r t he I J cou ld l e g iti mate ly

re qu ir e L in t o aff irmatively

prove his intent to take his childre n with him to C hina should he be de ported; and (ii) whethe r an a lien who ca n avoid per secution by

leavinghis or her c hildren in the United States is thereby

rende red ine ligible f

or asy lum. Cf., e.g. , Ab ay

v . A sh c ro ft , 368 F.3d 634, 642 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that, in adjudicating motion to reopen asy lum claim turning on pr ospect of g enital mutilation of alien’s daug hter in alien’ s home country , “the B oard ma de cle ar that the a lie n n e e d n ot ‘ pr ov e that sh e wo uld take the c hil d w ithhe r a s p art of he r b ur de n to de mon str a te elig ibilit y for r elief, if she has custody of the c hild’” and that “‘[n] ormally a mother w ould not be ex p ec t edt o l ea v e h er

ch i l d i nt h e U n i t edS t at es i no rd er t o av o i d p er s ec u t i o n ’” (q u o t i n g In re Dibba , N o. A7 3 5 41 85 7 ( B .I .A . N ov . 2 3, 20 01 )) ); Y u Huan Jiang v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 2 01 F. App’x 838, 840 (2d Cir. 2006) (unpublished summary order ) (“ [W ]e find gr oundless and offe nsive the I J ’s sug g estion that an alien is unable to establish a fe ar of perse cution wher e she can a void persec ution by

separ ating from her

child.”). It is unclear the extent to which the I J ’s flawe d analy sis concer

ning L in’s marria g e date aff ecte d its discussion of these other issues. There fore , we de cline to addr ess them her e. 7 1 “whe re the ag ency ’s determination is based on an inac curate per ception of the rec ord, omitting 2 potentially

signific ant fa cts”). We ther efor e ca nnot say that a substantial basis exist ed for con c lu d ing 3 that L in would return to China without his family if he we re or dere d remove d. 3 4 An oth e r o f t he B I A’ s r e a so ns fo r d e nying a sylum wa s tha t, ev e n if L in w e re to r e tur n w ith 5 his c hil dr e n , h e w a s u n l i k e l y t o b e p e r s e c u t e d

b e c a u s e C h i n a

h a s n o n a t i o n a l p o l i c y

o f f o r c ibl y 6 ste ri lizin g tho se wh o h a ve br ok e n the po pu latio n c on tr ol l aws by havin g c hil dr e n in

oth e r c ountr ie s. 7 This finding w as made not by the I J in the first place , but by the BI A on appea l. The ag ency ’s own 8 regulations, however , prohibit the BIA from e ng ag ing in f actf inding “ i n t h e co u rs e of de ciding 9 appea ls,” except insofar a s it takes “administrative notice of commonl y known facts such as curre nt 10 e ve nts or

the c on te nts of

of fi c ia l do c ume nts .” 8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 1( d) (3 )( iv) ; see Burge r v. Gonzales , 11 49 8 F .3 d 13 1, 13 4 (2 d Cir

. 20 07 ). I n de te rm ini ng that Chi na ha s no natio na l po licy of f or c ibl y 12 sterilizi ng those with more than one fore ign- born child, the BIA did not take administrative notice 13 of

any c omm on ly

kn ow n f act s or o ff

ic ia l do c ume nts —in de e d, the B I A c ite d n o e vid e nc e fo r t his 14 pr op os iti on

wh a tso e ve r. Th e BI A’s fai lu re to c ite any su pp or t f or its de te rm inatio n o f C hin e se8 1 national policy

preve nts this findi ng from serving as a valid basis for its dec ision. See A nderson v. 2 McElroy , 9 53 F .2 d 8 03 , 8 06 –0 7 ( 2d Cir . 1 99 2) (“ [T]he B I A’ s den ia l of re lie f ca n be a ff ir me d o nly 3 on the basis ar

ticulated in the decision

. . . and we cannot assume that the BI A considered fa ctors that 4 i tfa i l edt o m en t i o ni ni t s d ec i s i o n . ” ( o m i s s i o ni no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Ma tti s v . I NS , 774 F.2d 965, 967 5 (9th Cir.1985))). 6 The B I A’s fina l rea son for de nying r elief w as that L in submit ted “insuff icient documenta

ry 7 evidenc e . . . that ther e is any likelihood that [ he] will be st erilized by the C hinese authorities” for 8 havin g mor e tha

n o ne U. S.- bo rn

c hil d. App . 2 . T he pr ob le m w iththi s f ind ingis that, whil e it 9 perha

ps was supported by

the re cord, we have no way to discern the e x tent to which it was base d on 10 an a sse ssm e nt o f the re c or d dist inc t f ro m th e fl awe d r e a so nin g dis c us se d a bo ve . T he on ly

sp e c if ic 11 re fe re nc e the B I A m a ke s to L in’ s in div idu a l c ir c ums tanc e s is in t he pr e c e din g se ntenc e : “ I t is 12 unclea

r whe ther the U nited States citizen children will actually return to China with the re spondent.” 13 Id. This statement is infec ted with the same inc orre ct per ception of the rec ord that under mined the 14 I J ’s assessment of L in’s relationship with his family

. See Tian-Y ong Chen , 359 F.3d at 127. There 15 is also a dange r t hat t he BI A’s bald and therefor e im proper decla ration of Chi nese national policy 16 mig ht h a ve fr a me d it s su bs e qu e nt a

na ly sis of L in’ s d oc ume nta

ry e vid e nc e and

served as a f

a ult y 1 7 p r e d i c a t e i nf

i n d i n g t h a th e w a s u n l i k e l y t o b e s t e r i l i z e d u p o n a r e tu r

n t o C h i n a . B e c a

u s e t h e B IA 18 decision off

ers nothing to clarify

the s i tuation, its final reason f or deny ing L in relief must also be 19 reje cted. See W

ei Guang W

ang v. BIA , 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d C ir. 2006) (“[T] he BI A s hould provide 20 us wi th m or e tha n ‘ c ur so ry , s umm ary

or c on c lus or

y state me nts ,’ so that w e are a ble to d isc e rn

its 2 1 re as o n s fo r d ec l i n i n g t o af fo rdre l i ef t o a p et i t i o n er . ” ( qu o t i n g Anderson , 953 F.2d at 806)). 22Specifica lly , the re cord in Shou Y ung Guo included the f

ollowing thre e docume nts: (1) 4 C HAN GL E C I TY F A M I LY -P L ANNI NG A D M IN ., A DM I NI S TRAT I VE O PI NI ON ON S A N CT I O N S A G A I N ST F A M I LY -P L ANNI NG V I OL ATI ONS B Y Z HE NG Y U H E A N D H I S S POUSE (May 22, 2003); (2) F UJ I AN P ROVI NCE D EP ’ T O F F A M I LY -P L ANNI NG A D M IN ., A DM I NI S TRAT I VE D EC I S I ON ON R EQ UE S T F OR D I R E C TI VE F R OM F UZ HOU C I TY A DMI NI S TR ATI ON ON F A M I LY -P L ANNI NG I N C ON NE C TI ON W I TH B I R TH OF A S EC OND C HI L D B Y Z HE NG Y U H E O F C HAN GL E C I TY M U N I CI PA L B UR EA U OF C ONS TR UC TI ON AN D H I S S PO US E I N USA (2003); and ( 3) C HAN GL E C I TY F A M I LY -P L ANNI NG A D M IN ., Q & A F O R C HAN GL E C I TY F A M I LY -P L ANNI NG I NF OR MATI ON H ANDB OOK (Jul y 1999). Se e ge ne ra lly

App. to Appellee ’s L etter B r., Mar . 4, 2008 (re printing the se docume nts). The rec ord in this case doe s not include these doc uments; nor does it contain any versions of two State Depa

rtment publications that have f igur ed prominently

in BIA asylum decisions analy zing Chi na ’s on e -c hil d p oli c y : C HI NA : P RO FI LE O F A S YL UM C L AI MS AND C OUNTR Y C ONDI TI ONS and the China cha

pter of the C OUNTR Y R EP OR TS ON H UMAN R I G H T S P RACTI CE S . Se e ge ne ra lly In re S-Y -G- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 247, 253 n.2, 255–57 (B .I .A. 2007); In re J -H-S- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 196, 19 8– 20 3 ( B .I .A . 2 00 7) ; In re J -W -S- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 185, 186 n.1, 188 n.4, 189–94 & nn.5, 8–9 (B .I .A. 2007). How ever , L in has expressed his intention on remand to off er the Shou Y

ung Guo documents listed above, a mong othe rs, on a motion to reope n the evidentiar y rec ord bef

ore the BIA. See Appellant’s L etter B r. 5, Mar . 21, 2008. Moreove r, the B IA has the pow er to take administrative notice of

officia l reports such a s those from the State De partment. See 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1 (d )( 3) (i v) ; see also Qun Yang v. McElroy , 2 7 7 F

. 3 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 3 n . 4 ( 2 d

Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )

. We express no view as to the e vidence that the ag ency might conside r on re mand. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a )( 1) ; Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales , 494 F.3d 260, 269 ( 2d Cir. 2007). 9 1 Al tho ug h th e a g e nc y of fe re d n o v a lid re a so n fo r de nying a sylum or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l, 2 we ne ed not re mand if doing so would be futile, that is, if we c an pre dict with confidenc e that the 3 ag ency would rea ch the same re sult even abse nt these er rors. See, e .g. , Biao Y

ang v. Gonzales , 496 4 F .3 d 2 68 , 2 72 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ); Cao He Lin v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 428 F.3d 391, 395 (2d C ir. 2005). 5 The futility

analy sis here r elates to whe ther L in rea sonably fea rs future perse cution based on the fac t 6 that he has two U .S.-born childre n. 7 De c isi on s r e nd e re d s ub se qu e nt t o the B I A op ini on a t iss ue in t his a pp e a l in fo rm

our a na ly sis 8 of how the BIA m ight hy pothetically decide this case on rema nd. I n 2006, we noted in Shou Y ung 9 Guo v. Gonzale

s the exist ence of docume nts that might support the finding that the F ujian Province 10 has a forc ible sterilization policy

. 463 F.3d 109, 115 ( 2d Cir. 2006). I n three prec edential opinions 4 11 decide d in the summer of 2007, the BIA consi d er ed the Shou Y ung Guo documents and r elatedWhil e the de nial of the motion to reopen in S-Y -G- called f

or abuse -of- discretion 5 revie w, we note d separ ately that we ha d identified “substantial re cord e vidence supporting the BIA’s fa ctual finding s.” Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 143 n.3. 10 1 evidenc e along side State Depa rtment country

repor ts and deter

mined that eac h applicant ha d failed 2 to establish that China in g ener al or the Fujian Province in pa rticular adher es to a

n officia l policy

of 3 fo rc ibl y

ste ri lizin g tho se wi th m or e than one c hil d, a s o pp os e d to of fe ri nge c on omi c inc e nti ve s to 4 underg o voluntary sterilization procedure s. See I n re S-Y-G- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 247, 253–59 (B .I .A. 5 2007) (involving asylum applicant with one ch i l d b o rn i n China and anothe r born in the United 6 States), on remand from Shou Y ung Guo , 463 F.3d 109; In re J -H-S- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 196, 201–03 7 (B .I .A . 2 00 7) (w ithc hil dr e n b or n in Chi na ); In re J

-W -S- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 185, 191–93 (B .I .A. 2007) 8 (with children bor

n in the Unit ed S tates). Rece ntly , in Jian Hui Shao v. M ukasey , this Court denied 9 petitions for review of the J-H -S- , J-W -S- , and S-Y

-G- decisions, finding no err or in the BIA’s re fusal 10 to pr ovide these applicants with relief. See J ian Hui Shao v. Muk

asey , 546 F.3d 138, 174 (2d Cir. 11 2008). Among other thing s , we conclude d that substantial evidence supported the B I A’s fa ctual 12 fi nd ing s in

the se thr e e c a se s. Se e id

. 5 13 I t is re a so na ble to p re dic t th a t, i f w e we re to r e mand the pr e se nt c a se , th e B I A mig ht a g a in 14 re je c t L in’ s app lic a tio n by

re ite ratin g its de te rm inatio n th a t Ch ina ha s n o n a tio na l po lic y

of fo rc ibl y 1 5 s t er i l i z i n g t h o s e wi t h m o re th an o n e ch i l d an d b y ci t i n g J-H

-S- , J-W -S- , and S-Y

-G- to s up po rt

thi s 16 proposition. However , the B I A’s dec isions in t hese c ases do not cle arly resolve the futility of 17 rema

nd issue prese nted here. One can inf er f rom the ag ency ’s re asoning in J-H -S- , J-W -S- , and S

- Y18 G- that th e do c ume nts su bmi tte d in thos e c a se s we re no t eno ug h by the mse lve s to esta bli sh a we ll19 founded f

ear of “f orce d” sterilization pursuant to the definition of “r efug ee” found in 8 U.S

. C . § 20 1101(a) (42). See J ian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 174. At the same time, the a g ency ref used to interpre tUn lik e fa c tua l f ind ing s o n w he the r a

pa rt ic ula r a pp lic ant h a s d e mon str a te d a we ll- 6 founded f ear of for ced ste riliz ation, the question whethe r Chinese nationals are c ate go ric all y excluded from the de finition of refug ee unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 42) is one of statutory interpre tation that merits analy sis under Chevron

. See Jigme W angchuck v. De p’t of Homeland Sec. , 4 48 F .3 d 5 24 , 5 28 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ); London v. Polishook , 189 F.3d 196, 199–200 ( 2d Cir. 1999). 11 1 the def

inition of refug ee a s cate g orica lly prec luding a ll Chi nese a sy lum applicants from esta blishing 2 a li kelihood of future harm ba sed on their having mor e than one child. Rather, a s the BIA explained 3 in J-H

-S- , 4 the qu e sti on wh e the r the bir th of tw o ch ild

re n in China g ive s ris e to 5 a we ll-founded f ear of per secution depe nds on the fac ts of eac h case , 6 inc lud ing , in pa rt ic ula r, the de ta ils of

loc a l f a mil y pla nn ingpo lic ie s, 7 proof that a n alien violated suc h policies, and evidenc e that loca l 8 enfor ceme nt effor ts ag ainst th e v i olation will rise to the level of 9 perse cution. Evidence bear ing on a ll of these fa ctors must, t aken 10 toge ther, e stablish t h at a r easona ble per son in the responde nt’s 11 cir cum stan c e s w ou ld f e ar p e rs e c uti on

if he re tur ne d to his ho me 1 2 c o u n t r y. 13 14 24 I . & N. De c . at 20 1; see also S-Y-G- , 24 I . & N. De c . at 251 (e mph a sizi ng ne e d for “ c a se -b y -c a se 15 analy sis” of applications for asylum based on alien’ s alleg ed viol ation of “family planning policy

as 1 6 es t ab l i s h edi nt h at al i en ’s l o ca l p ro v i n ce , m u n i ci p al i t y , o r o t h er re l ev an tar ea ” ( ci t i n g J-H -S- , 2 4 I. 17 & N . Dec . 196)). This construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 42), “w hich re jects a c ateg orica l 18 application of the ‘we ll-founded f ear ’ provision to such claims in favor of ca se-by -ca se re v i ew ,” 19 ear

ned Chevron d e f

e r e n c e in o u r

decision in Jian Hui Shao v. M ukasey , 546 F.3d at 156–57. 6 20 Be cause this construction leave s o p en the possibility that a Chinese national with two or more 21 children mig ht demonstrate a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution, id. at 156, a citation to J-H -S- , 22 J-W

-S- , or S-Y

-G- alone would not support a c ateg orica l rejec tion of L in’s application. 2 3 Wi th r e s p e c t to th e f u ti li ty an a ly s is a

p p li c a b le in a s y lum c a s e s s u c h a s th e s e , w e r e c o g n iz e 24 that the re asoning in J-H -S- , J-W -S- , and S-Y

-G- could in ma

ny circ umstances support a

predic tion12 1 that the B I A woul d re j ect an asylum applicant pre sentingevidenc e suff iciently simil ar to that 2 analy

zed in these three prec edential c ases. The problem wit h making such a predic tion in L in’s case , 3 howeve r, is that none of the ag ency ’s ana ly sis of L in’s application survives re view by this Court. 4 The I J ’s errant finding concerning the l ikelihood of L in returningto China with his children 5 was the only

g round that the I J offe red f or re jecting L in’s asylum application—a conc lusion that 6 underc uts th i s C o u rt ’s ab ility confide ntly

to predict that re mand would be f utile in this case . See 7 Niang , 5 11 F .3 d at 14 9– 50 ; Y uanliang Liu v. U.S. Dep’ t of J ustice , 455 F.3d 106, 111 & n.1 (2d Cir. 8 20 06 ); Li Hua Li n v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 111 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (“T he more centr al an 9 err ant finding was to the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination, naturally , the less confident we c an 10 be that re mand would be f u t i le.”) . I n addition, L in presente d evidenc e sug g esting that his mother 11 and sister-in- law had undergone forc ed sterilization procedur es in China as a r esult of having 12 vio la te d a

fa mil y pla nn ingpo lic y . Wh e the r thi s a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e wo uld e na ble L in t o e sta

bli sh 13 that he would fa ce pe rsec ution upon r emoval is the ag ency ’s call to make in the first instance. Yet 14 the a g e nc y

did no t ma ke an a pp ro pr iate de te rm inatio n in thi s r e g ard . A s f

or the B I A, no t on ly

did 15 it ex pressly

reiter ate the I J ’s er ro n eously -re asoned c onclusion reg ardingthe proba bility of L in’s 16 children a ccompa ny ing him to China, but its discussion of additi onal reasons for its ruling amounted 17 to “cur sory , summary or conc lusory

statements” insuff

icient to permit thi s C o u rt to discern the 18 validity of any alternate g rounds for de nying L in’s application for asylum. W

ei Guang W

ang , 437 19 F.3 d at 27 5; Anderson , 9 53 F .2 d at 80 6; c f. L i H ua Lin , 453 F.3d at 111. As a re sult, the 20 administrative dec isions in L in’s case provide insufficient g uidance to pe rmit this C ourt to conclude 21 that the B I A dec isions in J-H -S- , J-W -S- , and S-Y

-G- would predic tably

lead the a g ency

to rejec t 22 L in’s application. We there fore conclude that rema nd would not be futile.13 1 Conclusion 2 We gr ant the petition for r eview, va cate the BIA’s October 17, 2005 order , and re mand the 3 matter to the B I A for further proce eding s, including proce eding s befor e the I J if appropr iate for the 4 development of

additional fac ts.