The Honor able Sea n F. Cox , Uni ted States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0818n.06 Filed: Nove mber 27, 2007 No. 06-3968 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT CHUIL I N, Plaintiff-Petitioner, ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM v. THE B OARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS AL BERTO R. GO NZ AL ES, United States Attorney

Gene ral De fe nd a nt- Re sp on de nt. _______________________________/

BEF ORE: MERRI TT and CL AY, Circuit J udg es, and COX, D istrict J udg e. *

COX, Sean F ., District

Judge. This matter is b ef o re the Court on a Petition for Review fr om t he B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n Ap pe a ls. Pe tit ion e r a rgue s that the B oa rd of I mmi g ra

tio n App e a ls (“B I A”) err ed wh en it denied his reque st for re consideration of its affirmanc e of the I mmigration J udg e’s (“I J ”) decision denying asylum or withholding of remova l. The BIA foun d P et i t i o ner’ s proff ere d “new evidenc e,” a

study questioning the acc urac y of statements taken dur ing c redible f ear int e rv ie ws , w a s n ot m a te ri a l be c a us e Pe tit ion e r d id n ot e sta bli sh th at it rel a te d to his c a se . T his Court ag ree s with the decision of the B I A, there fore , we DENY the Petition for Revie w from theAs of March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security ’s Burea u of I mmigration and 1 Customs Enforc em en tan d Bu re au o f C i t i z en s h i p an d I m m i gra t i o n S er vices replace d the I mmigra tion and Naturalization S ervic e. 2 B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls. I. BACKG ROUND AN D P ROCEDURAL HISTORY This action ar ises out of Petitioner, Chui L in’s applicati on for a sy lum and withholding of

re mov a l. I n th is actio n, Pe tit ion e r s e e ks re vie w o f t he or de r o f t

he B I A d e nyinghis mot ion to reope n/rec onsider the B I A’s prior ruling aff irming the decision of the I J

. The I J denied Petitioner’s application for

asylum and withholding of r emoval. Petitioner is a citizen of the People’s Repu b l i c o f C h i na. Petitioner ar rived in the United St ates on J anuar

y 31, 2002. He wa s interviewe d by ag ents of the Immigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I

NS”) b o t h u p on his arriva l at L os Ang eles International Airport; and on F ebrua ry 12, 1 20 02 , p ur su a nt to a Not ic e to Ap pe a r iss ue d by the I NS. Du ri ngthe se int e rv ie ws , te rm e d c re dib le fe ar i nte rv ie ws , Pe tit ion e r t old a uth or iti e s th a t in

Jan uar y 20 01 , h e liv e d w ithhis tw e nty y e a r o ld g ir lf ri e nd in C hin a . H e tol d au th ori ti es he c ou ld n ot m a rr y his g ir lf ri e nd a t th a t ti me be c a

us e in China, a woman must be twe nty -two y ear s old to ge t married. N onetheless, Petitioner c laims that his girlf riend be came preg nant. Petitioner alleg ed t h at i f h e were r eturne d to China, he would be

ar r e s t e d b e c a u s e h e d i d

n o th a v e a

p p r o v a l t o g e tm a r

r i e d a n d f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e o n e - c h i l d

p o l i c y. On Fe bruar

y 14, 2002, the I

NS se rved Petitioner with a Notice to Appe ar c harg ing Petitioner with removability

from the United States. Petitioner a ppear ed for

a hea ri n g b ef o re I J Terr

y Ba in. He c oncede d the alleg ations, including r emovability . Howeve r, P et i t i o ner soug ht relief f rom

re mov a l, s e e kin g a sylum; withh old ingof re mov a l; a

nd pr ote c tio n und e r t

he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins tRespondent re fer s to her as “ Shao Sui S ang ” or “ Sang .” 2 3 Torture

. P et itioner testified at the he aringthat he wa s eng ag ed to his g irlfriend, X iu FangShao 2 (“Shao” ), and that in 2001 they lived with his parents in China. Acc ording to Petiti oner, on F ebrua ry 23 , 2 00 1, his g ir lf

ri e nd fe lt i ll s o h e too k h e r t o th e ho sp ita l, w he re the y dis c ov e re d s he wa s p re g na nt. Th e ne xt day , Pe tit ion e r c la ims the F a mil y Plann ingCom mit te e ( “ F P C ” ) c a m e t o a rr e st Sh a o b e c a

us e “she w as pre g nant and was not old enoug h to have a child and then we didn’t marry .” Petitioner and Sha o w e re no t ho me wh e n th e F PC c a me . Duri ng his te sti mony , Pe tit ion e r c la ime d Sh a o w a s o nly nineteen, a

nd had to be twe nty

y ear s old to marry

. Al le g e dly , a ft e r t

he a rr iva l of

the F PC, P e tit ion e r’ s p a re nts c on ta c te d h im a nd tol d h im t o hide. He a

nd Shao went to live with Petitioner’s uncle in F uzhou. Petitioner claims they stay ed four day s. On the four

th day , the FPC arr ived and took Shao to the hospital to have a n abortion. Petitioner acc ompanied Shao to the hospital. Petitioner claims that on Marc h 3, 2001, he and Shao

wer e fine d 18,000 y

uan for violating the family planning policy

. Acc ording to Petiti oner, a uthorities threatened his par ents with jail if Petiti oner r efused t o p ay . After being informed of the fine, Pe tit ion e r cl a ime d he a nd Sha o we nt to stay wi th fr ie nd s tha t live d f our o r f ive ho ur s awa

y . A t so me po i n t , S h a o r e tu r

n e d t o h e r p a r e n t s , w h e r e s h e n o w r e s i d e s . P e t i t i o n e r f l e d t o t h e U n i t e d

Sta te s. Petitioner claims he fe ars that if he is returne d to China, he will be beate n and sente nced f or violating the family

planning policy

and for illega lly exit ing China. On September 15, 2004, the I J issued her decision. She found that Petitioner’s cla ims were not cre dible based on inc onsistencies betwe en Petitioner’s c redible f ear interviews and his testimony at the hea ring

. J udg e Ba in c ited Petitioner’s failure to te ll a uthorities of the abortion during initial interviews. She a lso cited the discre pancie s in the ag e of his g irlfriend give n during interviews a nd4

during his testimony . J udg e B ain also found that Petitioner’ s story did not “make se nse.” She believed it did not make se nse that Petitioner would take his girlfr iend to the hospital beca use they would have suspe cted she was pre g nant. Fur ther, Judge B ain took issue with Petiti oner’ s alleg ation that the hospital allow ed S h ao t o leave rathe r than re quiring the abor tion to be perfor

med immediately . J udg e B ain also did not believe that Petiti oner a nd Shao would re t u rn h o m e after finding out she was pr eg nant in light of the FPC’s policies. J udg e B ain also held that e ven if Petitioner’s story was cre dible, he fa iled to establish that he wa s a re fu g e e wi thi n th e me a ning of Un ite d St a te s a sylum

laws be c a

us e he wa s n ot m a rr ie d to Shao. Judg e B a i n r

u l e d t h a tP e t i t i o n e r

f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a w e l l

- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e r s e c u t i o nif returne d to China, and failed to e stablish eligibility for withholding of re moval. The c ourt order ed: (1) Petitioner’s a

pplication for asy lum was denied; (2) Petitioner’s application for withholding of

remova l was denie d; and (3) r elief pur suant to Article 3 of the Convention Ag ainst To rt u re w as denied. Petitioner wa s order ed to be r emoved to China. Petitioner filed an a

ppeal f rom the I J ’s dec ision with t he B I A on September 21, 2005. On Fe bruar y 16, 2006, the B I A af

firmed the I J ’s dec ision without opinion. Petit ioner d i d n ot file a petition for re view of that decision. On May 5, 2006, Petitioner filed a Mot i o n fo r Reopening/Reconsideration with the BI A. Petitioner sought to re open the B I A’s F ebrua ry 16, 2006 order

aff irming the I J ’s dec ision. P etitioner argued his motion should be g rante d on the basis of ne w and pr eviously unavailable evidenc e. He relies on a

Fe bruar y 2005 study

entitled “Study

of Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal As Authorized by

Section 605 of the International Religious Fr eedom Act of 1998; Evaluation of5

Credible F ear

Refer ral in Expedited Removal at Ports of Entry in the Unit ed S tates” ( “study ”). Ac c or din g to P eti ti on e r, the stu dy sh ow s “ wi de dis c re pa

nc ie s f ro m r e qu ir e d p ro c e dure s th a t c a st g ra ve do ub t on

the a c c ur a c y

of a sse ssm e nt m e mos , e ve n under th e mor e str ing e nt p os t- I I RI RA criter ia.” Essentially , the study found that details offe red by aliens during cre dible fea r interview s

wer e not alwa

y s acc urate ly

rec orded, were not sufficie ntly elabor ated on, or were not confirmed by the aliens de spite use in subsequent asy lum procee dings. The conce rn is that the statements may be prese nted during Secondar y I nspection interview s as a means to impeach a n alien’s testimony , when in actuality , the statements ar e er roneous. Petitioner argued that the study should be considere d as

new e vidence beca

use it was published in Fe bruar y 2005, well af

ter the I J ’s September

2004 decision. Petitioner claims he w as only able to obtain a c opy of t he st udy afte r t he B I A’s F ebrua ry 2006 decision. Fur

ther, Petitioner also reque sted rec onsideration of the B I A’s dec ision based on a

numbe r o f c a se s h e ld i n a be y a nc e by

the B I A a dd

re ssi ngsim ila

r l e g a l is su e s. On J une 13, 2006, the B I A issued an or der de ny ing Petitioner’ s motion. The BI A found that with respec t to the study , it was “not mater ial to the specific fac ts of the re spondent’s ca se and thus cannot be considere d materia l evidenc e.” Additionally , with respec t to Petit ioner’s a rg ument that his appea l should have bee n decide d in c onjunction w ith se vera l c ases being held in a bey ance , the motion was one for

rec onsideration - a

nd was thus untimely

. Petitioner subsequently

filed the instant Petition, seeking revie w of the B I A’s June 13, 2006 Orde r deny

ing Petitioner’ s motion for reope ning/r econside ration.

II. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW “In a g iven ca se the B oard of I mmigration Appeals may deter mine, as a sufficient ground f or denying a

motion to reopen, whe ther the a lien has produc ed pre v i o u sly unavailable , materia l6

evidenc e.” Allabani v. Gonzales , 4 0 2 F. 3 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 5 (6 C i r. 2 0 0 5 )( ci t i n g INS v. Abudu , 4 85 U. S.

th 94, 107-108 (1988))

. “A motion to reopen proc eeding s shall not be g rante d unless it appear s to the Boa rd that evide nce soug ht to be offe red is mater ial and wa s not available and could not have be en discovere d or presented at the former hear ing.” Id

. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). “The se dec isions

are subject to an a

buse of discr etion standard of revie w, and in dete rmining w h ether the B oard abused its discre tion, this Court must decide whether the denial of t he mot ion to reope n...was made without a rational e x pl an at i o n , inexpl icably depar ted from e stablished policies, or re sted on an impermissible basis such as invid i o u s discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or

g roup.” Id

. (citations omitted). III . A NA LY SIS A. The BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discr etion When It Denied P etitioner ’s Mot ion to Reopen Petitioner argues the BI A abused its discretion by failing to consider r eleva nt circumstanc es reg ardingthe study

submitt ed with Petitioner’s motion to re open. Petitioner’s argument is without

me ri t. T he B I A c on sid e re d th e stu dy e no ug h to re a lize that the stu dy did no t pe rt a in to t he sp e c if ic fac ts o f P e tit ion e r’ s c a se . In o the r w or ds , w hil e the stu dy may have fo un d th a t s o m e a li e n ’s state me nts take n duri ng c re dib le fe a r int e rv ie ws a re e rr on e ou sly re c or de d a nd un re lia ble a s us e d in

su bs e qu e nt S e c on da

ry I ns pe c tio n, no thi ngin the stu dy ind ic a te d th a t Petitioner’s statements wer e

err oneously

rec orded or

unreliable

. Petitioner does not offe r evide nce that his own statements during his cred ib le f

e a r in te r v ie w s w e r e in a c c u r a te ly r e c o r d e d o r a r e o th e r w is e n o t c r e d ib le

. Rath e r , he arg ues t hat b a s e d

o n th e s tu dy , c r e d ib le f

e a r in te r v ie w s tate me n ts in

g e n e r a l s h o u ld

b e d e e me d unreliable

.7

Petitioner’s reliance o n a sing le study that found some cr edible fe ar state ments were unreliable , is insufficient - particularly in light of the l ack of evidenc e that his specif ic cr edible fe ar statements ar e unre liable - to meet Petitioner’s “ heavy burden” to reope n proce eding s. See Abudu , 485 U.S. at 110. Acc ording ly , the B I A did not abuse its discretion. B. The BIA Did Not Apply an E rroneous Standard to Pe titioner’ s Motion to Reopen Petitioner argue s t hat the B I A er red a s a matter of

law bec ause it applied a n err oneous sta nd ard to h is m oti on

to r e op e n p ro c e e din g s. Ac c or din g to P e tit ion e r, the B I A e rr e d b e c a us e it require d the newly

submitt ed evide nce to r elate to the “ specific fac ts” of Petitioner’s c ase, r ather than

me re ly re qu ir ingthat

the e vid e nc e be ma te ri a l to Pe tit ion e r’ s c la im i n g e ne ra l. P e tit ion e r c ite s 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1): A mot io n to re op e n p ro c e e din g s sh a ll s ta te the ne w f a c ts that w ill be pr ov e n at a hear ing to b e h e ld if th e mo ti o n is g r a n te d a n d s h a ll b e s u p p o rte d b y a f

f id avits or other e videntiary

materia l. A motion to reopen proc eeding s fo r the purpose of su bmi tti nga n a

pp lic a tio n f

or re lie f m us t be a c c omp a

nie d b y the a pp ro pr ia te application for

relief and a l l s u pporting documentation. A motion to reope n proce eding s shall not be g rante d unless it appear s to the B oard that evidence soug ht to be offe red is mater ial and wa s not a vailable and could not ha ve bee n discovere d o r p re s en t edatt h e f

o rm er h ea ri n g. Petitioner’s argument is unavailing . The B I A cor rec tly applied the r eg ulation and found that the evidenc e submitted by Petitioner, i.e. t he st udy , was not “c onsidered material e vidence .” [J .A. 7]. The B I A f

o u n d th a t it w a s n o t mate r ia l b e c a u s e it d id n o t r e late to th e s p e c if ic f a c ts of Petitioner’s ca se. As discussed a bove, this finding w as not an a buse of discretion. There is nothing that connec ts the results of the study to Petiti oner’ s situation such that the study has any bear ing on the re liability

of Petitioner’s cr edible fe ar inter view stateme nts. Accor dingly , the B I A d i d n o t errThe cases cited by Petitioner are inapplicable in this ca se. I n Shou Y ung Guo v. Gonzales , 3 4 6 3 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 ( 6 Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , th e c o u rt f o u n d th e B I A a

b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o n b y f

a il ing to consider th docum e n ts th a t i n d ic a te d f o r e ig n - b o r

n c h il dr e n w o u ld

b e c o u n te d

in d e te r mi n in g v io lati o n s of China’s one-c hild policy . Howeve r, unlike Petitioner’s ca se, the doc uments relate d to Shou Yung Gu o’ s sp e c if

ic c a se be c a

us e sh e ha d mo re tha

n o ne c hil d, a t le a st o ne of wh om w a s f

or e ig n b or

n, in violation of China’s one-c hild policy

. Her e, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the r eleva nce of the study to his specific situation. 8 as a matter of law

. 3 Moreove r, Petitioner ig nores the I J ’s finding that even if his testimony

wer e cr edible - he would still not be consider ed a r efug ee under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(42). [J .A.17-18]. This finding c annot be challeng ed beca

use Petitioner failed to timely seek rec onsideration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) (2).

IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY the Petition for Review fr om the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls.