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 Third C irc uit 7-27-2010 

# H e C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2849

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " H e C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 871. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/871NOT 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- 2849

___________ HE CH E N, Pet i t i oner

v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e s p o n d e n t

____________________________________ 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. 077- 281- 659) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

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

A pr i l 14, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y27, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerH e C hen s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval of the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e n y in g h e r m o tio n to re o p e n h e r d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g s . 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.2 I. C h e n , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C h in a , e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 9 . T he fol l ow i ng m onth, C hen w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppear , char gi ng heras r emovabl e underI N A § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) fornotpos s es s i ng orpr es ent i ng the pr oper document at i on foradmi s s i on. O n M ar ch 2, 2000, C hen appe ar ed atheri m m i gr at i on hear i ng and i ndi cat ed, thr ough couns el , thats he w ant ed t o appl yforas y l um , w i thhol di ng o f re m o v a l, a n d p ro te c tio n f ro m re m o v a l u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). D ur i ng the hea r i ng, C hen w as s erved w i th w r i t t en not i ce thathernexthear i ng w as t o be hel d on M ay17, 2000. O n M ay17 , aft erC hen fa i l ed t o appea ratherhear i ng, the th I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) or der ed herr emoval t o C hi na i n abs ent i a. I n M ar ch 2008, C hen fi l ed w i th the I J a mot i on t o r eopen he rpr ocee di ngs , s eeki ng to rea p p lyfo r asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C A T . H o w ev er, b e c a u s e th e mo t i o n t o r e o p e n wa s u n t i me l y , Ch e n s o u g h tt o b e r e l i e v e d f r o m th e t i me re stric tio n b ya lleg in g c h a n g e d c o n d iti o n s in C h in a sin c e sh e w a s o rd e re d re m o v e d in 2000. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i ) . Speci fi cal l y , C hen cl ai m ed thatbeca us e s he now h a s f iv e c h ild re n w h o w e re b o rn a f ter sh e h a d b e e n o rd e re d re m o v e d , sh e is n o w in v io latio n o f

C h in a ’s o n e -c h ild f

a m ilyp lan n in g p o licy . A d d iti o n a lly , b e c a u se sh e re c e n tly convert ed t o C hr i s t i ani ty , s he bel i eves s he w oul d be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on bas ed on her rel i gious bel i efs. A ft er r eview i ng C hen ’s m oti on t o reope n, the IJ denied the m oti on . F i rs t , the IJ3

not ed thatther e w er e no “e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” w hi ch pr event ed C hen fr om appea r i ng atthe M ay2000 hear i ng. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) . T he I J further found thatC hen w as pr i m ar i l ys eeki ng r el i ef ba s ed on a c hange i n herper s onal ci r cumst ance s and thats he fa i l ed t o demonstr at e cha nged condi t i ons i n C hi na ei ther r egar di ng the country ’ s curr entenfor cementof i t s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cyori t s curr ent tre a tm e n t o f

C h ristia n s, a s re q u ire d b y8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(4 )(i). C h e n f iled a tim e ly appea l t o the B I A and, i n a M ay2009 deci s i on, the B I A det erm i ned thatthe I J ’ s rul i ng w a s p ro p e r. C h e n f

iled a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th is C o u rt. II. A lth o u g h w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e B IA ’s o rd e r d e n y in g C h e n ’s m o tio n to r eopen, s ee Ezea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , the s cope of our r evi ew i s qui t e l i m i t ed. I N S v. D oherty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992) . U nderthe r egul at i ons , the B I A “has di s cr et i on t o denya mot i on t o r eopen e ven i f the partym ovi ng h as m ad e o u t a prim a f

ac ie ca se f

o r reli ef. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (a). A s the S u p rem e C o u rt has s t at ed, the r egul at i ons “pl ai nl ydi s favor ” s uch mot i ons . I N S v. A budu, 485 U . S. 94, 110 ( 1988) . A ccor di ngl y , w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of d isc re tio n w ith “ b ro a d d e f e re n c e ” to its d e c isio n . E z e a g w u n a , 3 2 5 F .3 d a t 4 0 9 . T h u s, in o rde r t o su cc ee d o n the p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , C h en m u st ult im atelysh o w that the B IA ’s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on w as arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . See Ti pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . C hen has fai l ed t o m ake s uch a4

s how i ng. III . C h e n d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t sh e f iled a n u n tim e lym o tio n to re o p e n , h a v in g f iled it near l yei ghty ear s aft erthe I J i s s ued a f i nal or derof r emoval . H ow ever , s he as s ert s that the B I A err ed i n fi ndi ng thats he pr es ent ed i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h change d c irc u m sta n c e s in C h in a , as re q u ire d b y8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii), in o rd e r to a v o id appl i cat i on of the t i m e r es tr i ct i on. I n herbr i ef on appeal , C hen fi r s tar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by deny i ng herm ot i on t o r eopen “ i n l i ghtof the r ecor d evi dence conce rni ng the i m pactof herhavi ng fi ve U ni t ed St at es C i t i zen c hi l dr en. ” ( Pet . B r . at11. ) N ext , C hen ar gues that th is C o u rt sh o u ld re m a n d h e r c a se to th e B IA “ f o r c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e d o c u m e n ts c o n tain e d in L in v . M u k a se y , 5 3 2 F .3 d 5 9 6 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ),” o r a ltern a tiv e ly“ re tain j ur i s di ct i on s o as t o perm i t[her ] t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on the evi dence i n L i n . . . [bec aus e s he] has fi ve U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c hi l dr en and publ i c pol i cy favor s fami l yuni ty . ” ( I d. at12. ) L as t l y , s he ar gues thatthi s C our ts houl d r emand her cas e t o the B I A beca us e the B oar d fai l ed t o cons i derthr ee of i t s ow n unpubl i s hed o p inion s g ran ti n g m o ti o n s to reo p en “in c ase s w h ere n ati v es a n d cit izen s o f th e P eo p le’s R e p u b lic o f

C h in a h a d c o n v e rt e d to C h ri s tia n ity in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” (I d .) A s an init ial m att er, w e f ind that the B IA co rrectl yd eterm ined that C h en ’s change d per s onal ci r cumst ance , i . e. , the bi r th of herchi l dr en, i s di s t i nctfr om change dC h e n a lso a rg u e s th a t w e sh o u ld re m a n d h e r c a se to th e B IA b e c a u se “ e v id e n c e is 1 b e c o m in g m o re a v a ilab le” a n d a re m a n d w o u ld se rv e th e “ in ter e sts o f ju stic e .” (S e e P e t. B r. a t 2 1 .) B u t th is e v id e n c e , w h ic h s h e d o e s n o t id e n tif y , is a ls o n o t a p a rto f

th e re c o rd . T h u s, to the ex tent C h en w ishe s to p rese n t new ev iden ce to the B IA o f c h an g ed co u n try 5 countycondi t i ons . See Li u v. A t t orneyG ener al , 555 F. 3d 145, 150- 51 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ; s ee a lso W a n g v . B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls, 4 3 7 F .3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). R e lief is a p p ro p ria telyd e n ied “ w h e re a p e tit io n e r is s e e k in g to re o p e n [ h e r] a sy lu m c a se d u e to ci r cumst ance s ent i r el yof [he r ] ow n m aki ng aft erbei ng or der ed t o l eave the U ni t ed St at es . ” W ang, 437 F. 3d at274. W e furtherfi nd thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng thatC hen fa i l ed t o demonstr at e the exi s t ence of a r el evantchange i n the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cyi n her h o m e p ro v in c e sin c e h e r a d m in istra tiv e h e a rin g in M a y2 0 0 0 . (A .R . 4 -5 .) C h e n a ss e rts thatthe Seventh C i r cui t ’ s rul i ng i n L i n, 532 F. 3d at597, confi r m s thatcountrycondi t i ons have w or s ened f

orw om en w ho have vi ol at ed C hi na’ s “one c hi l d” pol i cy . H ow ever , s he a d m its th a t “th e re c o rd e v id e n c e in th is c a se d o e s n o t in c lu d e th a t co n tain e d in L in c o n c e rn in g th e p a rt ic u la ri z e d e v id e n c e .” (P e t. B r. a t 2 1 .) C h en d o es n o t argu e tha t th e B IA “f ail [e d ] t o d iscu ss m o st of the e v iden ti ary rec o rd,” se e Z h en g v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 9 F . 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Instea d , sh e a p p ea rs t o u rge this C ou rtt o co nsi der evi den ce ou t si de o f t he ad m i nis trat i ve record, such as t ho se d o c u m e n ts c o n sid e re d b yth e S e c o n d C irc u it i n L in . H o w e v e r, w e h a v e p re v io u slyh e ld it i m perm i s s i bl e t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of evi dence thati s nota partof the admi ni s tr at i ve r e c o r d . S e e Be r i s h a

j v . As h r o f

t , 3 7 8 F . 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 3 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we 1condi t i ons , s he s houl d do s o i n a mot i on t o r eopen. Fur therm or e, al though C hen ur ges the

C o u rtthro u g h o u t her b ri ef to rem an d h er c ase b ase d o n eq u it ab le co n side rati o n s o r, al t ernat i vel y , t o “r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on, ” w e fi nd no bas i s fordoi ng s o. 6 r ej ectC hen’ s ar gum entthathercas e s houl d be r emanded t o the B I A s o thati tm ay cons i derthe evi dence s etforth i n L i n. W e f u rth e r c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA d id n o t er r in f in d in g th a t, ba se d o n th e m a ter ials C hen s ubm i t t ed w i th herm ot i on t o r eopen, s he w as unabl e t o es t abl i s h a mat er i al change i n the enf

or cementof the C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . Fi r s t , the B I A corr ect l ynot ed thatatl eas tone of the document s offe r ed byC hen pr e- dat ed heradmi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng and thus di d notqual i fyas evi dence thatw as notavai l abl e, and coul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed i n M ay2000, 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . ( A . R . 2. ) A l though C hen i ncl uded an a ffi davi tw i th the mot i on, s he di d notcl ai m t o have a nyknow l edge of how offi ci al s i n herhom e pr ovi nce a r e curr ent l yenfor ci ng the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy , nor d id sh e su b m itan yaf

fid av it s fro m fa m il ym em b ers o r frien d s w h o co u ld v erifythat there h a s b e e n a n in c re a s e in f o rc ib le s te ri liz a tio n s . (I d .) A ddi t i onal l y , the B I A found the unauthent i cat ed phot ocopi es of an a l l eged not i ce re g a rd in g th e f

u rth e r c a rry in g o u t o f

th e f a m ilyp lan n in g re g u latio n s a n d a w ritten re p ly fro m the F u

ji an P rov ince F am il yP lann ing C o m m issi o n w ere n o t spe cific to C h en ’s p arti cu lar cir cu m stan ce s, n o r did theyco n tai n “a n ind ici a o f re li ab il ity . ” (Id . ) M o reo v er, the r epl yfr om the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce Fami l yPl anni ng C om m i s s i on w as w r i t t en more than f iv e y e a rs a g o , a n d th e B IA f o u n d it f a ile d to e s ta b lis h th e c u rr e n t le v e l o f e n f o rc e m e n t.A l though w e r ecogni zed i n C ruz v. A t t ’ yG en. , 452 F. 3d 240, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , that 2 agenc i es s houl d notm ove aw ayfr om thei rpr evi ous rul i ngs w i thout“coge nt e x p lan a tio n s,” C h e n d o e s n o t d isc u ss , eith e r in h e r B IA a p p e a l o r in h e r b rie f b e f o re th is c o u rt , h o w th e f

a c ts o f h e r c a s e m ir ro r t h o s e p re s e n t in th e u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n s s h e c ite s . She m er el ys t at es thatthos e ca s es pr es ent“s i m i l arfac t s . ” ( Pet . B r . at8. ) B eca us e s he pr ovi des us w i th no furtheranal y s i s , w e ar e unabl e t o concl ude thatthe B I A ’ s deni al of her cl ai m dep art s fr om i t s previ ou s ruli ng s. 7 (Id.) B ase d u p o n that an aly sis, w e d o n o t agre e w ith C h en ’s asse rt ion that the B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yc o n c lu d in g th a t sh e f a iled to id e n tifyp re v io u slyu n a v a ilab le evidence sho w i ng a m at eri al chan ge in cou ntrycon dit i on s. C hen al s o ar gues thatthe B I A i m pr oper l ydeni ed herm ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on a change i n C hi na’ s tr eatm entof C hr i s t i ans s i nce he radmi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng i n 2000. C hen p rim a rilya rg u e s th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yf a ili n g to g iv e a d e q u a te c o n sid e ra tio n to th re e u n p u b lish e d B IA d e c isio n s th a t sh e c ited in h e r b rie f o n a p p e a l to th e B IA . (P e t. B r. a t 2 1 .) T he B I A ’ s unpubl i s hed dec i s i ons , how ever , ar e notbi ndi ng author i tyand, al though the B I A m ayhave gr ant ed an a l i en’ s m ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on a c l ai m of re lig io u s p e rs e c u tio n in C h in a , th o s e d e c is io n s a re n o t p re c e d e n t in f u tu re p ro c e e d in g s . See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( g) ( not i ng the condi t i ons , notpr es enther e, w hen a de ci s i on can serv e a s p rec ed en t) . 2 C hen al s o appea r s t o ar gue thatthe B I A fai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i derevi dence of change d condi t i ons r egar di ng the tr eatm entof C hr i s t i ans w hi ch s he s ubm i t t ed w i th her m o tio n to re o p e n . (P e t. B r. at 1 6 .) S p e c if ica lly , sh e a lleg e s th a t th e B IA f a iled to8

cons i deran “A nnual R eporton the Per s ecut i on of C hi nes e H ous e C hur ches byPr ovi nce. ” ( I d. ) H ow ever , a r evi ew of the B I A ’ s opi ni on s how s thatthe B oar d ci t ed and a nal y zed th a t d o c u m e n t sp e c if

ica lly . (A .R . at 5 .) T h u s, th e a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. H av ing fo u n d n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n o n the p art of the B IA in d en y ing C h en ’s u n t i me l ymo t i o n t o r e o p e n , 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.