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 Thir d C ir c uit 5-20-2010 

# Y ue Xi a o v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1594

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 b y 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 mor e 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 " Y ue Xi a o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1309. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1309NOT 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. 09- 1594

___________ YUE YAN XI AO, 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 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 098- 648- 589) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam K . M ill s

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

April 14, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay20, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM Y ue Y an X i ao pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval as w el l as the deni al of herm ot i ons forr econs i der at i on and t o r eopen i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . Forthe f o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I. Y ue Y an X i ao, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs forent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed aft eri ns pect i on byan i m m i gr at i on offi cer . She appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture ( “C A T ”), al l eging pa st per s ecut i on and a f

earof futur e per s ecut i on beca us e s he pr act i ced Fal un G ong. A t th e h e a rin g o n h e r a p p lica tio n , X iao tes tifie d th a t sh e p ra c tice d F a lu n G o n g in C hi na and thatoffi ci al s tr i ed t o arr es therbeca us e s he pos t ed Fal un G ong fl i er s i n her vi l l age. She s ai d t he pol i ce c ame t o herpar ent s ’ hous e w i th an arr es tw arr antbuts he w as nothom e. She hi d ata fr i end’ s hous e and he rpar ent s arr anged f orhert o come t o the U ni t ed St at es . X i ao t es t i fi ed thats he s t i l l pr act i ces Fal un G ong and fe ar s thats he w i l l be arr est ed if s he returns t o C hina becau se offici al s ar e st i l l l oo king fo r her . S he g ave alm ost n o d etail s o r spe cifics a b o u t th ese ev en ts. T h e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) fo u n d X iao’s te s tim o n y“ m e a g e r” a n d in s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h h e r e n title m e n t to a s y lu m o r o th e r r e lie f. T he I J al s o found thatX i ao fa i l ed t o pr ovi de corr obor at i ng evi dence forhercl ai m s . T he IJ s p e c if ica llyc ited th e lac k o f

sta tem e n ts f

ro m (1 ) X iao ’s p a re n ts, w h o c o u ld c o rro b o ra te3

th e a ttem p ted a rre st a n d c o n tin u e d se a rc h f o r X iao ; (2 ) X iao ’s s iste r, an a sy lee liv in g in th e U n ited S tate s in w h o m X iao c o n f id e d a b o u t h e r c irc u m sta n c e s; a n d (3 ) th e f rie n d w ith w hom s he hi d w hi l e w ai t i ng t o come t o the U ni t ed St at es . T he I J fur thernot ed thatX i ao pr ovi ded no expl anat i on forfai l i ng t o obt ai n thi s corr obor at i on des pi t e t es t i fy i ng that e ith e r sh e o r h e r p a re n ts c o u ld g e t in to u c h w ith a ll o f th e se in d iv id u a ls. X iao a p p e a led to the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , w ho adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on on M ay9, 2008. A b o u t tw o m o n th s la ter , o n Ju ly2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , X iao f iled a “ M o tio n to R eopen/ R econs i der . ” She s oughtt o s ubm i taddi t i onal s uppor tforherappl i cat i on i n t he form of an a r t i cl e dow nl oaded f r om the i nt ernetent i t l ed “2007, the l os ty ear[s i c] for Fal un G ong” and unda t ed phot ogr aphs of herpart i ci pat i ng i n a Fal un G ong demonstr at i on i n N ew Y or k. O n J anuary30, 2009, the B I A deni ed the mot i on. T he B I A deni ed the m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n a s u n tim e ly b e c a u s e it w a s f ile d a f te r t h e th ir ty-d a yd e a d lin e . See 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( c) ( 6) ; 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 2) . R egar di ng the r eques tt o r eopen pr ocee di ngs , the B I A deni ed r el i ef on the bas i s thatX i ao had notdemonstr at ed thather s u p p o rt in g e v id e n c e w a s m a te ri a l o r p re v io u s ly u n a v a ila b le . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 1 ). T he B I A fur therconcl uded that , even i f thi s s uppor t i ng evi dence w er e cons i der ed al ong w ith th e e x is tin g e v id e n c e o f re c o rd , it w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h e lig ib ility f o r a s y lu m . Id. O n M arch 2, 20 09 , X i ao fil ed a p et i t i on for r eview of b oth B IA orders . II.4

A s a th re sh o ld m a tter, w e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t w e lac k ju risd ictio n to r evi ew the B I A ’ s M ay2008 or derdi s m i s s i ng X i ao’ s appea l beca us e X i ao di d notfi l e a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f

th a t o rd e r. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(1 ) (p ro v id in g f o r th irty day s w i thi n w hi ch t o fi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew ) ; St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405 ( 1995) ( t i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen orr econs i derdoes nott ol l runni ng of fi l i ng per i od forr evi ew of B I A ’ s under l y i ng r emoval or der ) . X i ao’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew w as fi l ed on M ar ch 2, 2009, w i thi n thi r tyday s of the B I A ’ s J anuary30, 2009 or derdeny i ng r econs i der at i on and re o p e n in g , b u t n o t w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f th e B IA ’s M a y2 0 0 8 o rd e r d is m is s in g th e a p p e a l. T h e re f o re , the p e tit io n is tim e lyo n lyw ith re sp e c t to th e o rd e r d e n y in g X iao ’s m o tio n to r econs i derand r eopen. III . W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on the deni al of m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on and m ot i ons t o r eopen. B or ges v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; Fi l j a v. G onzal es , 447 F. 3d 241, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e mayr ever s e the B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif

it i s “ a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, or c o n tra ryto law .” S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 29 0 F . 3d 16 6, 17 4 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). W e w i l l up ho l d the B IA ’s factual det erm i nati on s so l ong as “theyar e ‘ s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ’ ” Li u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) (q u o tin g IN S v . E lia s -Z a c a ri a s , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 )) . T he B I A deni ed X i ao’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on on the bas i s thati tw as fi l ed5

a f te r t h e th ir ty-d a yd e a d lin e f o r s u c h a m o tio n h a d e x p ir e d . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(6 )(B ); 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b )(2 ). X iao d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e B IA e rre d in th is r egar d; i ndeed s he off

er s nothi ng on the i s s ue otherthan t o as s ertthatunt i m el i nes s w as an “off i ci ous gr ound” upon w hi ch t o denyherm ot i on. I n l i ghtof the undi s put ed evi dence of r ecor d thatX i ao’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on w as fi l ed af t erthe s t atut orythi r ty - day d e a d l i n e , th e B I A d i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i td e n i e d X i a o ’ s m o t i o n a s u n t i m e l y. T u rn in g to th e d e n ial o f X iao ’s m o tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s, su c h a m o tio n “ sh a ll notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappea r s t o t he B oar d thatevi dence s oughtt o be off er ed 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 form er hear i ng. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) . I n herm ot i on befor e the B I A , X i ao off er ed no pr oof thatherevi dence w as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e. B eca us e X i ao fa i l ed t o pr ove thatthe m a ter ial s h e su b m itt e d to th e B IA c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p re v io u slyd isc o v e re d , the B IA d id no tabu se i t s di scr et i on i n d eny i ng her m oti on on that basi s. A n d , co n tr aryto X iao’s a sserti o n that the B IA “ign o red ” h er e v iden ce , the B IA al s o cons i der ed her“new ” evi dence and det erm i ned thati t , combi ned w i th the evi dence of r ecor d, w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h herel i gi bi l i tyforas y l um orC A T pr ot ect i on. T he B I A m aydenya mot i on t o r eopen i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs w her e the movanthas fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forthe r el i ef s ought . See I N S v. D oherty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992) . H er e, X i ao s ubm i t t ed undat ed phot ogr aphs of herj oi ni ng a Fal un G ong demonstr at i on i n N ew Y or k and an a r t i cl e fr om the i nt ernetr ecount i ng Fal un G ongact i vi t i es i n 2007. T hi s evi dence does notbearon, l etal one es t abl i s h, w hetherX i ao w as

per s ecut ed i n C hi na forpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong. N orhas X i ao s how n how the ane cdot al acc ountof Fal un G ong act i vi tyi n 2007 aff ect s herl i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on. See Shar darv. A t t ’ yG en. , 503 F. 3d 308, 316 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( an as y l um appl i cantm us tm ake a s how i ng of a pa r t i cul ar i zed thr eatof per s ecut i on) . Forthes e r eas ons , the B I A di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng X i ao’ s m ot i on on the addi t i onal bas i s thats he di d not e sta b lish a p rim a f

a c ie c a se f

o r th e re lief

so u g h t. Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.

6