FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JAN 30 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13199 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 77- 309- 283 G U A N G Z H E N G , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 30, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

O n M a y 9, 2006, w e uphe l d the de c i s i on of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p ea ls (“B IA ”) af

firm in g an Im m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s d ec isio n d en yin g p etit io n er ’s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tio n a lity A c t, a n d p r o te c tio n u n d e rth e U .N . C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e . Z he ng v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 176 F e d. A ppx. 1001 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . O n J a nua ry 12, 2007, pe t i t i one rf

i l e d w i th the B I A a m ot i on t o r e ope n the pr oc e e di ngs , c ont e ndi ng thatci rc um st ance s had changed si nce the B oard’ s M ay9, 20 06 deci si on had i ss ued a nd tha t , i n l i ghtof

the S e c ond C i r c ui t ’ s de c i s i on i n G uo v. G onz a l e z , 463 F . 3d 10 9 (2d C i r. 20 06 ), hi s m ot i on w as t i m el y. T he m ot i on re pres ent ed thathe w as m a rr i e d on A ugus t24, 2004, a nd ha d a da ught e ra nd a s on born r e s pe c t i ve l y on A pr i l 15, 2005, a nd M a r c h 18, 2006, i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , a nd tha tbe c a us e of h a v in g a “s e c o n d c h ild w ith in m o n th s o f th e b ir th o f

h is d a u g h te r ,” h e h a d a w e llfoun ded fearof bei ng pers ec ut ed i f r eturned t o C hi na. O n J une 13, 2007, the B I A de ni e d pe t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n, f i ndi ng the m ot i on unt i m e l y . P e t i t i one rnow s e e ks r e vi e w of tha tde c i s i on, c ont e ndi ng tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n ( 1) f

i ndi ng tha tthe bi r th of

hi s c hi l dr e n i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s di d not am ou ntt o a change i n ci rc um st ance s i n C hi na, and (2) fai l i ng prop er l y t o con si der G uo v. G onz a l e s , 463 F . 3d 109 ( 2d C i r . 2006) , a s e f f e c t i ve l y c ons t i tut i ng a f i ndi ng thatC hi na had chang ed i t s pre vi ou s pol i cyand thati tno w tre at s f orei gn bo rn c h ild r e n a s C h in e s e n a tio n a ls f o rf a m ily p la n n in g p u rp o s e s . A c c o r d in g toWe re view theB IA’ s d e nial of a motion to re op e n f

or a bu seof dis c retio n. Ab di v . U .S. 1 Att’y Gen., 430 F .3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005). The review is “ limit ed to deter mining whether therehas been an exerc ise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise ha s been a

rbitrar y or ca pricious.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). A re cent c ampaign of forced steriliz ation in the petitioner’s home villag e may satisfy 2 the cha ng ed circumstance s exception. L i v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F .3d 1371, 1375 (11th Cir. 2007). 3 pet i t i on er , pri or t o G uo , there w as no evi dence thatC hi na w ou l d con si der c hi l dren b o rn o u t si d e o f C h i n a fo r fam i l y p l an n i n g p u rp o ses. 1 A m ot i on t o r e ope n “ m us tbe f i l e d no l a t e rtha n 90 da y s a f t e rthe da t e on w hi c h the f

i na l a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i on w a s r e nde r e d i n the pr oc e e di ng s oughtt o be r e o p e n e d .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . T h e 9 0 - d a y f ilin g d e a d lin e d o e s n o t ap p ly to an al i en w ho fi l es a m ot i on t o reopen p re di ca t ed up on “ changed ci rc um st ance s ar i si ng i n the coun tryof nat i on al i ty or i n the coun tryt o w hi ch depo rt at i on has bee n ordered, i f s uch evi dence i s m at er i al and w as no tavai l abl e a nd coul d n othave been di sc ov er ed or pres ent ed atthe previ ou s hea ri ng . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3)( i i ). 2 P et i t i on er ’ s r el i ance on G uo i s m i spl ac ed; thatdeci si on di d n otconst i tut e a fi nd i ng thatC hi na had chang ed i t s pol i cyas pet i t i on ercont ends. In G uo , the court o f ap p e a ls c o n s id e r e d o n ly w h e th e rth e c la im s in c e r ta in p r e v io u s ly u n a v a ilab le doc um e nt s w e r e m a t e r i a l t o a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, notw he the rthe doc um e nt s e s t abl i s he d a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on ore ve n ha d m e r i t . G uo,The documents ref erred to in Guo are distinct from the documents petitioner submitted 3 to the BIA in his moti on to reopen. 4 46 3 F . 3d at11 5 (re m andi ng the ca se t o the B IA for f urther det erm i nat i on ). In 3 s h o r t, p e titio n e r ’s r e lia n c e o n G u o to h a v e c h a n g e d C h in a ’s p o lic y is u n f o u n d e d . F i na l l y , w e a r e notpe r s ua de d tha tthe B I A f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe ba s i s of pe t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n – hi s c l a i m tha the ha d a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n th e b ir th o f h is tw o c h ild r e n in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T he B IA exer ci se d i t s di sc re t i on i n thi s m att erand d i d so i n a m anner that c o u ld n o t b e c o n s id e r e d a rb itr a ry o rc ap r ic io u s . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.