The Honor abl e Char l es R . N orgl e, Sr
. , Dis t ri c tJ udge f or the  Uni t ed Sta tes Dis t ri c tCour tf or the Northe rnDis t ri c tof I l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f App ea ls

F o rth eS ev e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2427 X I NG Z HE NG, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

OnPeti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

A 070 583 126
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 23, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 27, 2013

Befo re P O SNER and W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd N ORGLE, D istrict Judge.  W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Pe tit i onerXi ng Zheng a rgues th atth e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls (“ B IA ”) e rre d in2 N o. 12

- 2427 denyi ng hi s m oti on t o re open hi s i m m i gr ati on ca se bec au se it foun d th at Z he ng fai led to sh ow th at C h ina’s co ndi ti o ns had m ate r i al l y c ha ng ed f o rChr i st i an s wi th

ou t any reason ed exp lanation

. W e agree t h at th e B I A ’s co n c l u s o r y r ej e c t i o n o f Z h e n g ’ s a r g u me n t wa s e r r o r , b ut w e fin d th atth e e rro r w as h ar m les s. G ive nth e h igh ly gener al i zed nature o fZheng’ s e vi dence, wh i ch f ai l ed to show w i th anym eani ngful l eve lo fspeci fi ci ty that the p er secuti on a gainst Zheng’ s pra cti ce o fChri sti ani ty h ad m at er ially w or se n ed sin c e 1 99 9, th e B IA co u ld have r ea so nably c o nc l ude d tha t su che vi den ce was ins uffi c i e n t
. We th e r e f o r e d e n y Z h e n g ’ s p e t i t i o nf o rr e v i e w.

I . B AC KGR OUND Xing Zheng, a nati ve ofFuzho u Cityin the Fuj i an Pro vi nce o fChina, ar ri ved in the U ni ted S tat es i n 199 1 an d fil ed an ap p li cation f or asylum the follo w ing year, w hi ch w as denie d. The I N S c h ar ge d him with r em ovab ilityin 199 8, but Zheng re new ed hi s r equest f or as y l um , a ss er tingtha t hi s wi fe ( who ar r i ve d fr o m China i n 199 4 a nd wh om he m ar rie d i n 199 5) would be f or cibl y ste ri l i zed und er Ch i na’ s one-ch ild pol i cy be ca us e th eya l r ea dy ha d t wo c hi l dr en(bo r n in 19 96 an d 19 98 , res p ec t ive ly). T h e im m igr at ion j u d ge d en ied h is appli cati on in 199 9, r el yi ng in p ar t o n Zheng’s l ack of cr edibi l i ty, a nd the BI A affi r m ed in 2 00 2. Ov erthe ne xts ev er aly ea r s, Zhe ngmana g ed to re m ain in the Un i t e d S t a t e s a n d fi l e d th r e e mo t i o n s t o r e o p e nh i s i mm i gr ati on case . The BIA deni ed the m oti ons bec ause th eywer e unt i m ely ( an d s ucce ss i ve wi thr es pec t to theN o. 12

- 2427 3

seco nd and thi rd m oti ons ) a n d because Zheng f ai l ed to d em onst ra te changed co untry condi ti ons as to f or ced st er i l i za ti o n tha t wou ld j us ti fy a n e xc epti o n t o the st atut o r y b ara g ains t unt i m ely a nd s ucc es si ve mot i o ns to reo p en . See8 U
. S. C. § 1 229a
. I n Se ptem ber20 11, Zheng fi l ed a fourth m oti on t o r e o p e n, th e o ne a ti s s u e inth i s a p p e a l, e x c e p tth i s t i me he a r g ued tha t he woul d b e per se cut ed i n China bec au se he i s a C h r is tian. H e d id n ot argu e this before because he s ai d he conve rt ed to Chri sti an ity i n 201 0 w hi l e i n i m m i gr ati on detenti on, w hi ch w as su pp or ted b y e vid en c e i n c lu d in g th e fa c t th ath e a n d h is fa m ily w er e ba pti zed atthe Fi rs t Chi nese Fr ee M etho dist Ch urch. H e a sse rt ed that he and hi s f am i l y wis h to “co nti nue spre adingthe m ess age o fCh ris ti ani ty to othe rs , and to t ea c h them how to accept the r edem pti on he ha [ s]
. ” H e al so s ubmi tt ed ev i den ce whi chhe cl ai m ed sh o wed tha t Chi na ’s trea tmento fChr i st i an s had m ate ri al l y wors ened since 1 999. W i th o utque st i o ni ngthe s i nc er i ty o fhi s al l eg ed co nver si on, the BIA deni ed Zheng’s m oti on t o re open. A fter s e t t i ngf o r thth e p r o p e rl e g a ls t a n d a r d s a n d s u mm arizi ng Zh en g’s ev id e n ce an d argum en ts, th e B I A ’s rej ec tio nof Z h en g’s arg u m en t a m ou n te d to th e fo ll owing sta tem ents: The respondent has shown change d perso nal ci r cumst an ce s, butthe e vi den ce a nd a ss er ti o ns p r e s e n t e d ins u p p o r to fth i s mo t i o nd o n o td e mo ns tr at e m at er i al l y c ha ng ed co ndi ti o ns in China pertinent t o thi s cl ai m since the 1999 hear i ng,4 N o. 12

- 2427

es p ec ially in v iew of ev id en c e b e f o r e th e Im m igr at ion Ju d ge . Se e, e . g. , Bureau o fDem ocr acy, H um an Ri ghts, a n d Labor, U
. S. Dep’t ofS tat e, C hina: P rofi leof Asylum Claim s and C o u n try C onditio ns ( A pri l14, 1998) ( describi ng the suppress i on of unreg istered religi ou s group s, includ ing un d ergr ound churches a nd “ho use chur ch” Pr ote sta nts, ar re st s a n d be at in gs of re ligios u lea d er s, d em olition of p rop erty, etc.). T h e refore, the B oard find s tha t t he ex cep tion for un tim ely and nu m berba r r ed m o ti o ns t o r eo peni s i na ppl i cabl e to the re spondent’s cas e. Zhe ngpe ti ti o ne d f o rr ev i ew. Al o ngwith h i s pet i ti o n, Zheng subm i ts up dated evi dence ofpurport ed changed cou nt ry cond it ions, includ ing the State D ep artm en t’s 2011 Internati onalR elig i ous F re edom Repor t, wh i ch st at ed th atChina ’ s “r es pec t f o ra nd pr o te ct i o n o fthe ri ght to re l i gi ous fre edom deter i or ate d,” that u nreg i ste red r el i gi ous o rg ani zati ons w er e no t a l l owed to hol d w or shi p ser vi ces, a n d that “ [ p]r ose l yti zi ng in publ i c” was f o rbi d d en . The ev i den ce a l so inc l ude s th e St ate Departm ent’ s 2 011 H um an Ri ghts Reporto n Ch i na, wh i ch st ate d that “ [ d]et er i or ati on in keyas pects of th e cou n tr y’s h u m an rig h ts sit u at ion c on tin u ed ,” notin g that “pol i ti cal l y s ensi ti ve” i nd i vi du al s f aced r estr i cti ons on thei r fre edom to “pra cti ce r el i gi on. ”

II. A N A L Y S IS S e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) o fT i t l e 8 o fthe Uni t e d Sta tes Co de an d i ts im p lem en ting regu lation , 8 C.F. R
. § 1003.2(c),N o. 12

- 2427 5

Part ofZ h en g ’s bri efapp ears to suggestthatchanged 1 p er so n a l circu m s t anc es, s uc h a s Zhen g’ s al l eg ed c onve rs i on, m ight j ustify g ranti ng a m oti on to re open. W e rej ect ed such a n a r g u me n t i n C hen g C hen v. G on zale s , 498 F. 3d 758, 760 (7 th C ir . 20 0 7 ). provi de that as a g eneral m att er, o nl y o ne m oti on t o r e o pe n may b e fi l e d a nd i t mus t b e fi l e d wi thin 90 days ofthe date o f e ntryo fa fi naladm i ni str ati ve or der o f re m ova l

. H owever, thes e t i m e a nd num ber lim i ts do not ap p ly to m o ti o ns t o r eo penf o rthe pur po se o fa ppl y i ng for as ylu m if th e m ov a n t s h ow s “ c h an ge d co u n tr y c on d ition s in the c ountr y o fnati onal i ty orthe countr y t o w h ich rem o v al h as be en ord er ed , i f su c hev id en c e is m ate ri aland w as not avai l able and w oul d not ha v e b e e n di s c o v e r e d o rp r e s e nt e d a tthe p r e v i o us p ro c ee d in g.” 8 U .S.C . § 12 29 a(c )(7) (C )(ii); s e eGe b re eye s us v. G o n z a les , 48 2 F
. 3d 952, 95 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. The part i es do not dispute th at u nd erthes e s tandards, Zheng was re qu ire d to sh ow th atC h in a’s co n d itio n s m at er ially wo r s e n e d f o rC h r i s t i a n s s i n c e 1 9 9 9 wh e nh i s fi r s ti mm igr at ion hea ring was hel d, eve n though Zheng w as not a Chri sti an in 199 9. 1 I fthe BI A deni es a mot i o n t o r eo pen, we wi l lno t fi nd er ro r “ ‘ unle ss [t he BI A deci si on] was m ade witho ut a ra tio nalexpl anati on, inexpli cabl y depar ted fro m es tablish e d p olic ies , or res te d on an im p er m iss ible ba sis such as i nvi dio us di scr i m i nati on aga i nst apart i cul arr ace orgr oup. ’ ” M o o sa v . Ho lder, 6 4 4 F. 3d 380, 384 (7th Cir. 20 11 ) ( ci ta ti o n o m i tt ed)

. Th e B I A i s r equi r ed “t o i ss ue opi ni ons w i th r ati onalexplan atio ns and adequate6 N o. 12

- 2427

Z heng ass ert s, and the governm ent do es not dis pu te, that 2 i n a s s es s i ng h ar m l es s e rr or w e m ay c ons i der e vi denc e of 

### (continued...) an aly sis of th e re c or d , an d t o an n ou n c e it s d ec isio nin ter m s s uffi ci ent t o enabl e ar evi ew i ng co urt to perce i ve that i t has h ea rd a n d thought a nd notm er el y r eacte d.” Geb re eye s us , 48 2 F
. 3d at 954 ( ci tat i ons and quotation m arks om itted ). H er e, the BI A’s de ci si o n rej ect ed Zhe ng ’ s ar g um en t w ith ou t a nad eq u at e a n aly sis of th e re c or d . Th e B IA si m plyst ate d that “ the e vi dence and ass ertio n s p re sente d in supp or t of thi s m oti on do not d em onst ra te m ate ri al l y c hanged c on dit i ons i n China s i nce the 19 99 h e a r i n g, ” b u t ga v e n o e x p l a n a t i o na s t o w h y . I ts u mm ar i l y l i ste d the e vi dence pres ented by Z heng a nd then emphas i ze d a nd c i te d o ne pi ec e o fev idence o fr el i g i o us per se cut i o n tha t was a va i l ab l e i n 1 99 9, b utmade no com p arison bet w een the 19 99 evid en ce an d Zh en g’s m or e r ecentev i dence to explain wh y no change d c o u n t r y c i r c u ms t a n c e s we r e s h o wn . T h e g o v e r n me nt ar gue s th atthe r ec o r d was s uffici en t t o s uppo r t th e BI A ’s dec i si o n, b ut“ th e g o ve r nm en t m ayno t defen d the BI A ’ s deci si on o n gr ounds th at are not sta ted

— or at l eas t di scernible

— i n the deci si on i tse l f

. ” Geb re eye s us , 48 2 F .3d at95 6. A n d it p oin ts to n ot h in g in th e B IA or d er fr om wh i ch w e m ay disc er n w hy i t be l i eve d that Z he ng ’s m ore recen t evide nc e d id n ot p ass m us ter. N onethel ess , we m ust deny Zhe n g’ s peti ti on be cause an y e rro r w as h ar m les s. See Ta riq v . K e isler, 50 5 F
. 3d 650, 65 7 (7 th C ir. 20 0 7 )
. T h ou gh Z h en g s u b m its a fair 2N o. 12

- 2427 7



### (...continued) c oun t r y c o n di t i o n s a s th e y e x i s tc u r r e n t l y , wh i c h me a n s we m a y c on sid er Z he ng ’ s up d ated ev id en ce w hich d id no t exist a t th e t im e o f th e B IA d ec isi o n . S ee G i day v. G on zale s , 434 F .3d 54 3 , 55 6 n .6 (7 th C ir . 20 0 6 ). am ount o fev i dence dem on st ra ti ng poo r condi ti ons f or c ertain types o fChri sti ans t oday, such a s e vi dence th atp ro se lyt izin g (w h ich Z h en g w ish es to d o) is f orbi dd en, the onl y e vi dence thatco nd i ti ons m ater ially wors e ne d s i nce 19 99 am ounts excl usi vel y t o the s tat em ents that prot ection s forr el i gi ous fre edom s “ deter i or a t e d. ” S uc h hi g hly ge ne r a l i z e d s t a t e men t s s i mpl y do n otsa tis fy Z h en g’s bu rd en . Cf. , e . g. , M o o sa , 64 4 F
. 3d at 38 7 ( “[ G] en er alc o ndi ti o ns o fha r dsh i p tha t affec t en ti re popu l ati ons . . . ar e no t p er secuti on. ” ( quotati on m ar ks an d cit at ion om it t e d ) ) ; Igl esias v . M uk a sey, 54 0 F
. 3d 528, 53 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( sing le g en er als ta te m en t ab o utthe

“ h a p p i l y ma r r i e d c o u p l e ” w a s in s u ffi c i e n tt o d e mo ns tr at e bo na fi de m ar r i ag e)
. Zhe ngpo i nt s to no th i ng i nth e r e p o r t s , f o re x a mp l e , th a ts h o ws inw h a tt i me fram e c o nd iti ons de teriorated , how cond iti ons sp ecifi cal l y deteri or ate d fo r thos e who pract i ce Chri sti ani ty i n the m anner that Zheng w i shes to prac ti ce, o r w hether such pers ecutio n inte nsi fi ed i n orar ound the r egi on w h er e Z h en g e x p ec ts to live

. C f. M o o sa , 6 44 F. 3d at 387 (ev id en c e o f “b ro ad so c ial st rife ” o c c u rrin g n ea rly 900 m il es aw ay from pet iti one r’s hom etow n w as insu fficie n t). Z h e n g p oin ts to ev id en c e s h ow in g th atco n d itions h ave w orsen ed f or at torne ys w ho d efend persecute d C hri sti ans, but he does notas ser t that he i s a n8 N o. 12

- 2427 att orney. H e points t o e vid ence that Ch i na per secute s unregi ste re d churches, but the e vi dence does n ot show how thatper secuti on s peci fi cal l y wors ened since 19 99 orbefor e, and m or e i m port antly, h e doe s no t a l l ege that he b el o ng s to, o rwoul d j o i n, a n un r eg i st er ed ch ur ch

. I n s um , no ne of th e ev i den ce i l l us tr at es wi tha nymean i ngful l eve lo fsp ec ifi ci ty how China’ s t re atm ent o f tho s e wh o p r a c t i c e Ch r i s ti ani ty a s Z he ngwi s he s t o do actual l y wo rsened fro m 19 99 orbefor e unti lto day.

“ [ B] e c a us e the B I A c o ul d h a v e r e a s o nab l y c o nc l ud e d” that Zheng f ai l ed to dem onst ra te m ate ri ally change d ci rcum sta nces, “we need notr em and becaus e the a l l ege d l ega ler ro r w as harm l ess . ” I gl e s i as , 54 0 F
. 3d at 532- 33.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON For the above

- sta ted r eas ons, we D EN Y Zheng’s peti ti on f o rr e v i e w.

3- 27- 13