2009 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 8-27-2009 

# Li v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3974

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 773. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/773NOT 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- 3974

___________ H U A L I, Pet i t i oner

v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,

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 79 429 935 Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se

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

M ay04, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t27, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM H ua Li pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ” or

“ B o a rd ” ) d e c isio n d e n y in g h e r m o tio n to re o p e n h e r im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s. W e w ill d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.In g e n e ra l, a m o tio n to re o p e n m u st b e f iled n o late r th a n n in e tyd a y s a f ter th e d a te 1 o f th e f in a l ad m in istra tiv e d e c isio n . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ). T h e g e n e ra l ru le is s ubj ectt o s om e exc ept i ons , s uch as forchange d countr ycondi t i ons , i f pr offe r ed evi dence i s m at er i al , w as notavai l abl e, and coul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed att he ea rl ier he aring . 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii ). 2 L i or i gi nal l yappl i ed foras y l um and otherr el i ef ba s ed on thr eat s s he r ece i ved for r efus i ng t o m arr ya governm entoffi ci al i n C hi na. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed r el i ef. T he B I A aff

i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on on N ovember 17, 2004. Y ear s l at er , on J anuary5, 2007, L i fi l ed a mot 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, cl ai m i ng t hats he had mar r i ed a man ( w ho l at erbeca m e a pe r m anentr es i dentof the U n it ed S tat es) in a tr ad it ion al ce rem o n yin 2 0 0 4 , an d reg ist ere d the m arriage in N ew Y o rk i n 2005. T he coupl e had a chi l d on A ugus t6, 2005, and Li w as pr egnantw i t h a s econd chi l d att he t i m e s he fi l ed the mot i on t o r eopen. She as s er t ed thatt he mot i on w as exempt fr om t he ni nety - dayt i m e r es t r i ct i on on m ot i ons t o r eopen be caus e herm ot i on w as bas ed o n c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in C h in a a n d b a se d o n f a c ts n o t p re v io u slya v a ilab le to her . Speci fi cal l y , C hen cont ended thats he w oul d l i kel ybe per s ecut ed as a vi ol at orof t he o n e -c h ild ru le o f

th e f a m ilyp lan n in g law , b e c a u se e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e law b yf

o rc ib le s t er i l i zat i on orabor t i on w as becomi ng m or e fr equenti n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. O n Sept ember 10, 2007, t he B I A deni ed the mot i on. T he B oar d found thatL i had “nots ubm i t t ed re liab le a n d p re v io u slyu n a v a ilab le e v id e n c e to e sta b lish th a t re o p e n in g is w a rra n ted in t hi s cas e, ”and thus t he mot i on w as t i m e- barr ed bec aus e i tdi d notfal l w i t hi n any exce pt i ons t o t he t i m e l i m i t at i on. 1T h e G o v e rn m e n t d isp u tes th is c h a ra c ter iza tio n , n o tin g th a t th e S e c o n d C irc u it sim p ly 2 found the evi dence w arr ant ed a r emand, and, t haton r emand, t he B I A concl uded thatt he al i en had nots how n t hatcondi t i ons i n C hi na had c hanged mat er i al l ys i nce he ras y l um hear i ng i n 1996. R es pondent ’ s B r i ef a t17, n. 8 ( ci t i ng 

### Matt er of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247 ( BI A 2007) ). T he document , atA . R . 73- 75 al s o appea r s t o have a 2001 fax da t e. 3 3 L i ar gued i n herm ot i on t o r eopen, ci t i ng Shou Y ung G uo v. G onzal es , 463 F. 3d 109, 112- 13 ( 2d C i r . 2006) , t hatt he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Second C ir c u it h a d re c o g n iz e d n e w e v id e n c e s h o w in g a c h a n g e in c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s – th a t is , a new pol i cyi n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w i t h r egar d t o enfor cementof bi r t h contr ol l aw s on coupl es w hos e chi l dr en w er e born abr oad. A . R . 22. L i ar gued thatr epor t s had ea r l i ers how n t hat 2 s peci al pr i vi l eges w er e ext ended t o r etur ni ng over s eas coupl es w i t h chi l dr en born abr oad, A .R . 2 8 -2 9 ; b u t th a t s u c h w a s n o lo n g e r t h e c a s e . I n s u p p o r to f

h e rmo t i o n t o r e o p e n , Li i n c l u d e d a n u mb e ro f d o c u me n t s . S e e A. R. 41, L i s tof D ocument s i n Suppor tof the M ot i on. T he B oar d i ndi cat ed thatm anyof the document s L i pr oduced ha d al r eadybeen c ons i der ed and r ej ect ed i n M at t erof S- Y - G - , 24 I. & N . D ec. 24 7 (B IA 20 07 ), and al so com m ented on speci fi c do cum ents as fol l ow s:

• T he “Respons e of the A dm i ni s t r at i ve O ffi ce of t he N at i onal Pl anni ng C om m i t t ee t o the Fu j i an P rovi nce P op ulat i on . . . ” w as unrel i able, as the o ri ginal C hinese ver s i on of the document , al t hough dat ed 2006 had a fax da t e of M ar ch 12, 2005. 3 T he B oar d al s o fou 

### nd that i t wa s m at e ri a l l y

s i mi l ar t o adoc um e nt

pr oduc e d i n S- Y- G- , wh i c h a l s o a ddr e s s e d “ ther e produc t i vebe havi or s of theZh e ng , YuHe c oupl e , ” and whi c h the Boar d ha d de t e rmi ne d di d “ not e s t abl i s h that

the resp o n d ent h im self

w o u ldb e f

o un dto v io late f

amily p o licies, o r th at if

h e w as, h is puni s hm e nt

woul d ri s e t o the l e ve lof pe r s e c ut i on. ” A. R. 3.

• The 1999 Chang Le Ci ty Que s t i on and Ans we r

Doc um e nt

wa s unauthe nt i c at e d,4



### an dco u ldh av e b eenp ro du cedat L i’s 2 0 0 3 h earin g . T h e B o ardalso n o tedth at it h adb eenco n sid eredinS -Y -G - an df o un dn o t to sh o wth at th e resp o n d ent w o u ld fa c e pe r s e c ut i on.

• The a ffi davi t

of de m ogr a

phe r Dr . J ohn Ai r d wa s not

ba s e d on fi r s t - hand knowl e dge and ha d be e n r e je c t e d i n Matt e r

of J - W - S- , 24 I . & N. De c . 185, 189 (BIA 20 07 ).

• T w o n ew s articles reco untin g f o rcedab o rtio n s an d/o r sterilizatio n s inL inyi, wh ic h is i n S hand on g p rovince, did n ot disc uss problem s i n L i’ s hom e are a.

• Th e t es ti m ony

of Harr y Wu befo re a Unite d S tate s Hou seof Repres entati ves co mmittee d idn o t p ro v id e “any sp ecif ic in f o rm atio nreg ard in g alien s return edto Fuji an Pr ovi nc e a ft e r

the bi rth of m

ul t ipl e c hi l dr e n abr oa d. ” A. R. 4.

• Stat e Depart

m ent i nf orm ation f

rom 20 04 and 2 00 5 d id “not contai n evidence that so m eo n e inth e resp o n d ent’s p o sitio nan df ro m h er area w o u ldb e sub

j ect to fo rc ed st eril iz ation o r other pers ec utory

ac ts up onre turn to her hom e province. ” Id ..

• “[ T ] h e rem ain in g d o cum ents sub mittedb y th e resp o n d ent . . . d o n o t . . . su f f ice to m e e t he r bur de n of pr oof for

r e ope ni ng unde r

Matt e r of S- Y- G- . . . . ” I d. L i also alleg edth at sh e ask edh er m o th er-in -lawto in qu ire w ithth e v illag ers’ c ommi tt e e i n Li ’ s hom e t own, and the m othe r - i n- l aw wa s t ol d that Liwoul d not

be exclud ed fromfam ily

planning procedures i f she re turned to Ch ina. A.R. 59 . The Bo ard fo un d that Li’ s s tate m ent c on ce rning w hat her m other- in-l aw le ar

ned h ad li mit ed e vi de nt i ary

va lue , a s the r e wa s no s t at e m e nt fr om the m othe r - i n- l aw, and no i ndi c at i on h o wf amily p lann in g o f

f icials learn edth at L i h adg iv enb irth . B ased on t hese c o n c lu sio n s, th e B IA f

o u n d th a t th e e v id e n c e d id n o t es tab lish c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s in C h ina s u ff

ici en t t o su p p o rta re o p en ing o f th e p roc ee d ing s. F inally , the B IA rejected L i’ s a rg u m e n t th a t sh e c o u ld f ile a su c c e ss iv e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n th a t w o u ld n o t b e su b jec t toT he pet i t i on forr evi ew w as s t ay ed pendi ng t he C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n s ever al s i m i l ar 4 cas es . T hos e ca s es have be en dec i ded, and the part i es have f i l ed s uppl ement al br i efs add res si ng t ho se deci si on s. 5 t he cha nged countr ycondi t i ons r equi r ement of an unt i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen. L i fi l ed a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 4 We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h 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 r evi ew t he ul t i m at e deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f oran abus e of di s cr et i on. L i u v. A t t or neyG ener al , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . W e uphol d t he B I A ’ s fac tual det er m i nat i ons i f theyar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . K or y t nyuk v. A s hcr oft , 396 F . 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e not e thatL i ’ s ar gum entt hats he mayfi l e a s ucce s s i ve a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w ith o u t re g a rd to th e lim its a p p lica b le to a m o tio n to re o p e n is for ecl os ed byourdeci s i on i n L i u, i n w hi ch w e hel d t hat , aft ercompl et i on of r emoval p ro c e e d in g s, a n a lien m u st f ile a n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n in c o n ju n c tio n w ith a m o tio n to r eopen a nd m us tm eett he t i m e and numer i cal l i m i t at i ons on m ot i ons t o r eopen. 555 F. 3d at152. W e al s o r ej ectL i ’ s ar gum entt hathercas e i s s i m i l art o Z heng v. A t t or ney G e n e ra l, 54 9 F .3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 9 -7 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), w h e re w e v a c a ted th e d e n ial o f m o tio n s to r eopen ba s ed on the B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o di s cus s t he evi dent i aryr ecor d. I n i t s deci s i on her e, t he B I A s peci fi cal l yr efe r r ed t o al m os teverypi ece of bac kgr ound i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded byL i , concl udi ng t hatt hi s evi dence w as i nappl i cabl e bec aus e i tdi d notaddr es s t he tr e a tm e n t o f

C h in e s e n a tio n a ls re tu rn in g f ro m a b ro a d w ith U n ite d S ta te s c h ild re n .T h e C o n su lar Inf o rm ati o n S h ee t st ates in p art, “If o n e o r bo th p are n ts of

a c h il d are 5 PR C nat i onal s w ho have notper m anent l ys et t l ed i n anothercountr y , t hen C hi na r egar ds t he chi l d [born abr oad] as a PR C nat i onal and does notr ecogni ze a nyot herci t i zens hi p t he chi l d m ayacqui r e atbi r t h, i ncl udi ng U . S. ci t i zens hi p. ” A . R . 98. W e agr ee w i t h t he G overnm entt hatt he documentdoes notdi s cus s C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy , nordoes i ti ndi cat e thata C hi nes e nat i onal w ho r etur ns t o C hi na w i t h chi l dr en born abr oad w i l l be per s ecut ed. A s t o t he 1997 Let t er , w e agr ee w i t h t he G overnm entt hat , even a s s um i ng t he B I A di d notcons i deri t , no r emand i s nece s s ary , as t he Let t ercoul d have be en pr oduced atL i ’ s ear l i eras y l um hear i ng. 6 L i ar g u e s, sp e c if

ica lly , tha t th e B IA ig n o re d tw o p iec e s o f e v id e n c e : (1 ) th e S tate D epart m ent ’ s 2003 C ons ul arI nfor m at i on Sheet ; and ( 2) a 1997 “Let t eri n R es pons e t o t he I s s ue of I dent i fi cat i on of N at i onal i t y . ” A s t he G overnm enthas not ed i n i t s s uppl ement al br i ef, t he C ons ul arI nfor m at i on Sheets t at es att he t op t hati t“i s curr entas of t oday , T hu J an 22 11: 51: 39 2004. ” Thus, al t hough t he documentbear s a dat e of M ay29, 2003 att he begi nni ng of the t ext , t he B I A m ayhave i ncl uded i ti n i t s di s cus s i on of “St at e D epart m ent i nfor m at i on fr om 2004 and 2005. ” Fur t her , t he B I A al s o s t at ed thatt he “r emai nder ” of L i ’ s document s di d notes t abl i s h t hatr eopeni ng w as w arr ant ed. T he B I A t hus coul d have i n c l u d e d t h e C o n s u l a rI n f o r m a t i o n S h e e t , a n d t h e 1 9 9 7 L e t t e ri n t h i s c a t c h - a l l c a t e g o r y. 5 A l t hough w e have r emanded w her e the B oar d has “fa i l [ed] t o di s cus s m os tof t he evi dent i aryr ecor d, ” s ee Zheng, 549 F. 3d at269; w e do notr equi r e the B oar d “t o w r i t e an exege s i s on everycont ent i on” r ai s ed byt he movant , s ee Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 178 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he B I A her e exa m i ned the bac kgr ound evi dence s ubm i t t ed and d e ter m in e d th a t itd id n o t ad d re ss th e f a c ts o f L i’s c a se – th e tre a tm e n t o f C h in e se n a tio n a ls r etur ni ng fr om abr oad t o Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w i t h U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c hi l dr en. Subst ant i al7

evidence sup po rt s the B IA ’s con cl usi on s. 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 yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.