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 10-22-2009 

# C he n 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 . 08-3241

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 396. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/3961 NOT 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. 08- 3241

___________ YAN QI NG C HE 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 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 99- 432- 582) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

O ct ober14, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober22, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Y an Q i ng C hen pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal or derof r e mo v a l . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.B efor e the I J , C hen i ndi cat ed thathe di d notw i s h t o pur s ue hi s cl ai m forr el i ef unde r 1 the C A T . ( A . R . 1151. ) A ddi t i onal l y , the B I A found thathe w ai ved anys uch cl ai m by n o tr a i s i n g i to n a p p e a l . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l n o ta d d r e s s th e me r i t s o f th a tc l a i m. 2 C h e n , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f C h in a , w a s c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili ty pur s uantt o I N A § 237( a) ( 1) ( A ) . I ti s notcl earfr om the r ecor d w hen orw her e he e nt er ed the U ni t ed St at es , buthe di d s o w i t houtpr operdocument at i on. T her eaf t er , he appl i ed for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) i n O ct ober2005. H e al l eged thathe fe ar ed r eturni ng t o C hi na bec aus e he a nd 1 h is w if e h a d tw o U .S .-b o rn c h ild re n in v io la tio n o f C h in a ’s f

a m ily p la n n in g p o lic ie s . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, t he I J deni ed r el i ef, det erm i ni ng thatC hen fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. H e appe al ed t o t he B I A , as ki ng thatthe r ecor d be r emanded t o t he I J forthe cons i der at i on of addi t i onal evi dence . T he B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of r el i ef a nd d e n i e d Ch e n ’ s mo t i o n t o r e ma n d . Ch e n t i me l yf i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . T o q u a lifyf

o r a sy lu m , C h e n m u st s h o w th a t h e is a “ re f u g e e ” ; in o th e r w o rd s, th a t h e is “unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r etur n t o [C hi na] . . . beca us e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded fea rof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ar s o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) ; 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 8 . “ [ A] per s on w ho has been f

or ced t o aborta pr egnanc yort o under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orforother r es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, s hal l be dee m ed t o have be en3

per s ecut ed on ac countof pol i t i cal opi ni on, and a pe r s on w ho has a w el l - founded f eart hat he ors he w i l l be for ced t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e ors ubj ectt o per s ecut i on fors uch fai l ur e, r efus al , orr es i s t ance s hal l be dee m ed t o have a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T he w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on s t andar d i nvol ves bot h a s ubj ect i vel ygenui ne fe arof per s ecut i on and an ob j e c t i ve l yr e a s on a bl e po s s i bi l i t yof pe r s e c ut i on . Se e I N S v. Car do z a - Fon s e c a , 48 0 U. S. 421, 430- 31 ( 1987) . T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cant m us tdemonstr at e “acl earpr obabi l i t yof per s ecut i on. ” See Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1 2 3 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).

B eca us e the B I A i ndepende nt l yas s es s ed the r ecor d, w e r evi ew onl ythe B IA ’s fina l ord er o f re m o v al. S ee E ze ag w u n a v . A sh cro ft, 3 2 5 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 5 (3d C ir . 2003) . T he B I A concl uded, bas ed on the evi dence i n t he r ecor d, thatC hen had notm et h is b u rd e n o f

d e m o n stra tin g a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n . T h is f

in d in g is s u b

jec t to r evi ew undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . U ndert hi s defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , w e w i l l uphol d t he fi ndi ngs of the B I A “unl es s t he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on but compel s i t . ” I d. at484. 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 di s cr et i on. L i u v. A t t or neyG en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e w i l l r ever s e the B I A ’ s deci s i on onl yi f i ti s “arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” S e v o ia n v . A s h c ro f

t, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).4 T h e B IA d eterm ined that C h en fa il ed to ca rryh is bu rde n o f p roo f. C h en ’s t es t i m onycons i s t ed of the fa ctt hathe has tw o U . S. - bor n chi l dr en and that , befor e he came t o the U ni t ed St at es , he s aw “thous ands ” of pos t er s and hea r d “thous ands ” of br oadca s t s i ndi cat i ng t hati f a c oupl e’ s fi r s tchi l d i s a boy , theycannothave a nyaddi t i onal ch il d ren , an d if th eir fir st ch il d is a g ir l, theym u st w aitfo u r y ea rs be fo re a p p ly ing fo r a perm i tt o al l ow them t o have a s econd c hi l d. ( A . R . 1168- 69. ) O nce theyhave ha d a s econd c hi l d, ei t hert he hus band ort he w i fe mustbe s t er i l i zed. ( A . R . 1169. ) H e furt her t es t i fi ed thathe w as notper s onal l yaw ar e of a ny one w ho r eturned t o C hi na fr om the U n ite d S ta te s w ith tw o f o re ig n -b o rn c h ild re n a n d w a s f o rc e d to u n d e rg o s te ri liz a tio n . ( A . R . 1171. ) T he B I A as s um ed thatC hen’ s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e and not ed the ext ens i ve document at i on he s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , butconcl uded thati tw as in su f f icie n t to d e m o n stra te a n o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le lik e lih o o d o f ste riliza tio n u p o n h is r etur n t o C hi na. W e ca nnots ayt hatthe evi dence c o m p e ls a c o n t r a r yc o n c l u s i o n . S e e Yu v . A tto rn e yG e n ., 5 1 3 F .3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 8 -4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (a f f irm in g B IA d e ter m in a tio n th a t, w ith o u t ad d iti o n a l ev id e n c e to th e c o n tra ry , rec e n t S tate D e p a rtm e n t C o u n tryR e p o rts i ndi cat e thatpet i t i oner ’ s fea rof for ci bl e s t er i l i zat i on w as notr eas onabl e) ; C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( r equi r i ng as y l um appl i cantt o demonstr at e by “cr edi bl e, di r ect , and s peci fi c evi dence an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s forthe cl ai m ed f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n ” ).W e n o te i n p arti cu lar th at C h en m aintains that “[ w ]he n take n w ith the re co rd 2 ev iden ce , D r. A ir d ’s ex p ert op inion m ak es a co n v incin g arg u m en t th at th e P eti ti o n er’s fe ar tha t he w il l be f

o rciblysteri li ze d is r ea so n ab le. . . . A b sen t anyreb u tt al ex p ert aff i davi t , the B I A had no r eas on nott o acc eptand gi ve ful l w ei ghtt o D r . A i r d’ s opi ni on as concl us i ve pr oof thatt he PR C ’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cyr emai ns coer ci ve and w oul d be appl i ed t o t he Pet i t i oner . ” ( Pet ’ rB r . 31. ) H ow ever , i n Y u v. A t t orneyG ener al , 513 F. 3d 3 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), w e a g re e d w ith th e B IA th a t re c e n t S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts te n d to c a st d o u b t o n th e u til ityo f D r. A ird ’s f

re q u e n tly -c ited a f

f id a v it, w h ich p ro v id e d o n ly g e n e ra lize d sta tem e n ts re g a rd in g C h in a ’s f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licie s a n d d id n o t sp e c if ica lly addr es s the i s s ue of c oupl es r etur ni ng t o C hi na w i t h chi l dr en born over s eas . I d. at348- 49. 5

O n a p p e a l, C h e n a rg u e s th a t B IA ’s d e c isio n m u st b e v a c a ted a s it f a iled to e x p l i c i t l yc o n s i d e re a c h d o c u me n th e s u b mi t t e d i n s u p p o r to f h i s c l a i m. We d i s a g r e e . As w e h av e p rev iou slyh eld, th e B IA “is n o t r eq u ir ed to ‘w ri te an ex eg esis o n ev ery c o n ten tio n . W h a t is re q u ire d is m e re lyth a t itc o n sid e r th e iss u e s ra ise d , an d a n n o u n c e its deci s i on i n t erm s s uffi ci entt o enabl e a r evi ew i ng courtt o per cei ve thati thas hear d and thoughtand notm er el yr eac t ed. ’ ” Fi l j a v. G onzal es , 447 F. 3d 241, 256 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng M ans ourv. I N S, 230 F. 3d 902, 908 ( 7th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ) . T he B I A ’ s opi ni on cl ear l yacknow l edged the vol um i nous r ecor d compi l ed by C hen and c oncl uded thati tw as i ns uffi ci entt o carr yhi s bur den of pr oof. C hen has not demonstr at ed thata contr aryconcl us i on i s compel l ed. 2

N ext , C hen cha l l enges the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r emand. W hi l e the B IA h as n o ted th at m o ti o n s to rem an d are n o t exp li cit lyp rov ided fo r bythe s tatu tory s cheme, w hen s uch a mot i on r eques t s r el i ef norm al l ypr ovi ded forbya mot i on t o r eopen ort o r econs i der , t he B I A w i l l t r eati s as s uch. See M att erof C oel ho, 20 I . & N . D ec. 464,6

471 ( B I A 1992) . C hen’ s m ot i on cons i s t ed of one par agr aph r eques t i ng thatthe ca s e be r emanded t o t he I J t o al l ow hi m t o cons i derand make partof the r ecor d over1, 000 pages of bac kgr ound document at i on. ( A . R . 21. ) C hen made no ar gum entr egar di ng w hatthat evi dence w oul d s how , orw hyi tw as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e. ( I d. ) A s the B I A not ed, t he vas tm aj or i t yof the document s at t ache d t o hi s m ot i on pr e- dat ed the I J ’ s J anuary10, 2007 deci s i on. A s C hen fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thatthes e document s w er e mat er i al and p re v io u s ly u n a v a ila b le , th e B IA p ro p e rl ye x e rc is e d its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n . See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) ( expl ai ni ng thatevi dence i n s uppor tof a mot i on t o r eopen m us tbe mat er i al and pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e) ; I N S v. A budu, 485 U . S. 94, 104 ( 1988) (c h a rg in g th e B IA w ith d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e a p p lica n t h a s o f f e re d p re v io u sly u n a v a ila b le m a te ri a l e v id e n c e a n d d e m o n s tr a te d p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ility f

o r r e lie f s o u g h t) . W e h av e c o n side red all o f C h en ’s arg u m en ts an d co n clud e tha t th eyare wi th o u tme r i 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.