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 11-6-2009 

# Zhi Zh 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 . 09-1392

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 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 " Zhi Zh a o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 291. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/291NOT 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- 1392

___________ Z HI Z HAO, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 078- 015- 958) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d F erl i se

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

Sept ember14, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S A N D A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed N ovember6, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Z h i Z h a o p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

a o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A ) . Forthe r eas ons bel ow , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand t he mat t er t o th e BI A.T he governm entcont ends thateven i f the B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the 1 m ot i on t o r eopen, r emand w oul d be fut i l e bec aus e the I J found thatZ hao had f i l ed a f ri v o lo u s a p p lic a tio n a n d th is f in d in g re n d e re d h e r p e rm a n e n tly in e lig ib le f o r b e n e f its . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (d )(6 ). H o w e v e r, th e B IA d id n o t re lyo n th e f riv o lo u sn e ss f

in d in g in deny i ng Z hao’ s m ot i on t o r eopen. D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 256 n. 25 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng thatunderthe doctr i ne of SEC v. C heneryC orp. , 318 U . S. 80, 95 ( 1947) , an a d m in is tr a tiv e o rd e r c a n b e u p h e ld o n ly o n th e g ro u n d s re lie d o n b yth e a g e n c y ). 2 I n A ugus t2002, Z hao w as char ged w i th r emovabi l i tyas an arr i vi ng al i en w i thout entrydocument s . She conce ded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) m ade a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng and deni ed r el i ef. H e al s o found thatZ hao had fi l ed a f

r i vol ous appl i cat i on. I n M ar ch 2006, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on 1 w ith o u t an o p inion . Z h ao d id n o t petit ion fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s ord er. In O ctob er 2 0 0 8 , Z h ao fil ed a m o ti o n to reo p en all eg ing ch an g ed co u n try con dit i on s i n C hina. S he argu ed thatshe w ou l d b e st eri l i zed if r em ov ed to C hina becau se s h e h a d g iv e n b ir th to a c h ild in th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d w a s p re g n a n t w ith a s e c o n d c h ild . T he B I A det erm i ned thatZ hao had nots how n change d countrycondi t i ons and deni ed the mo t i o n t o r e o p e n a s u n t i me l y . Z h a o f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r evi ew the deni al of a m o ti o n to reo p en fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . F il ja v. G o n za les, 4 4 7 F . 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . U n d e rth i s s t a n d a r d , w e m a y r e v e r s e th e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n o n l y i f i ti s “ a rb i tr a ry, ir ra tio n a l, o r c o n tr a ry to la w .” 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 ). A n al i en gene r al l ym ayfi l e onl yone mot i on t o r eopen, and mustfi l e the mot i on w i th the3

B I A “no l at erthan 90 day s aft erthe dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on w as r ender ed. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . T her e i s an exc ept i on t o the t i m e and number r equi r ement s form ot i ons thatr el yon evi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the co u n tryo f n ati o n ali ty . 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3). Z h a o a r g u e s th a tth e B I A f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e ra l l o f

th e e v i d e n c e s h e s u b m i t t e d . We a g re e . In Z h e n g v . A tt’yG e n ., 5 4 9 F .3 d 2 6 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), th e p e tit io n e rs s o u g h t to reo p en their rem o v al pro ce ed ing s o n the s am e g rou n d s as Z h ao . W e v ac ated the B IA ’s deni al s of the mot i ons t o r eopen be caus e the B I A fai l ed t o di s cus s the evi dence s ubm i t t ed b ythe p eti ti o n ers o r ex p lai n w h yitw as n o t suf ficien t. Id. at 26 8 -69 , 2 7 1 . H ere , the B IA l i s t ed the evi dence s ubm i t t ed byZ hao and not ed thatthe i dent i tydocument s di d not cont ai n authent i cat i ng i nform at i on. A ft ers t at i ng thatthe bi r th of Zhao’ s fi r s tchi l d and herpr egnanc yw er e cha nges i n herper s onal ci r cumst ance s , the B I A s i m pl yconcl uded: “[t ]he evi den ce, i ncludi ng the ev i den ce of con dit i on s i n C hina, i s i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh a chan ge in ci rcum st ances o r countrycon dit i on s ‘ ari si ng i n the cou ntryof n at i on al i ty ’ s o a s to c re a te a n e x c e p tio n to th e tim e a n d n u m b e r lim itatio n f o r f ili n g a late m o tio n to reopen t o ap plyfor asy l um . ” C . A . R . at3. W hil e t he B IA no t ed thatun der Z hen g itm ust adequa t el ycons i derthe evi dence s ubm i t t ed, i tfai l ed t o do s o. T he B I A al s o ci t ed t o I n r e S- Y - G - , 24 I & N D ec. 247 ( B I A 2007) , and M att erof C -C -, 2 3 I& N D e c . 8 9 9 (B IA 2 0 0 6 ). In S -Y -G -, th e a lien su b m itt e d a 2 0 0 3 C h a n g le C ity A dm i ni s tr at i ve O pi ni on and a 2003 Fuj i an Pr ovi nce A dm i ni s tr at i ve O pi ni on r es pondi ng4

t o an i nqui ryas t o t he appl i cat i on of the fa m i l ypl anni ng gui del i nes t o an unr el at ed al i en, Z h en g Y u H e. T h e re co rd a lso inc lud ed the C h an g le C ityQ & A H an d b o o k . T h e B IA det erm i ned thatthe pet i t i onerhad nots how n change d countrycondi t i ons and deni ed the m o tio n to re o p e n . In M a tter o f C -C -, th e B IA f

o u n d th a t th e 2 0 0 4 a n d 2 0 0 5 S tate D epart m entC ountr yr eport s w er e more per s uas i ve than an a ffi davi tfr om a r et i r ed demogra pher , D r . J ohn A i r d, i n det erm i ni ng thatan al i en w i th U . S. - born chi l dr en had not s h o w n a p ri m a f

a c ie s h o w in g th a t s h e m ig h t s u f f e r s te ri liz a tio n if

re tu rn e d to C h in a . W e obs erved i n Z heng that“w her e the evi dent i aryr ecor d cont ai ns document s t hat w e re n o t at iss u e in a n e a rlier d e c isio n , m e re re f e re n c e to th a t ea rlier d e c isio n is i ns uffi ci entt o w arr antadopt i ng i t s concl us i ons . ” Zheng, 549 F. 3d at271 n. 7. H er e, Z hao s ubm i t t ed document s thatw er e notati s s ue i n S- Y - G - orM att erof C - C - . She s ubm i t t ed, inter ali a, S h an g y an g V il lage fa m il yp lann ing reg u lat ion s, let ters fro m fa m il ym em b ers and fr i ends w ho w er e for ci bl yabort ed ors t er i l i zed i n C hi na, the 2007 C ountryR epor ton H u m a n R ig h ts P ra c tice s, c o n g re ss io n a l tes tim o n y , an d n o tice s f ro m to w n a n d v ill a g e b irth contr ol offi ces di r ect ed t o her . T he B I A di d notexpl ai n how thi s evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tr eopeni ng. In it s b ri ef

, the g o v ern m en t r eli es h ea v il yo n the B IA ’s de cisi o n in M att er o f J-W S- , 24 I & N D ec. 185 ( B I A 2007) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatchi l dr en born over s eas ar e not co u n ted b ythe C h ines e g o v ern m en t fo r fa m il yp lann ing p u rpo ses. H o w ev er, i n Z h ao ’s ca se, th e B IA d id n o t ci te t o J-W -S - ev en tho u g h itw as a v ail ab le at th e ti m e o f th e B IA ’s5

d e c is io n . T h e g o v ern m en t al so reli es o n the p ri o r ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing . W h il e the B IA not ed thatthe pr i oradver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on s houl d be cons i der ed, i tdi d not expl i ci t l yr ej ectanys peci fi c evi dence bas ed on the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. T he governm ental s o ar gues thatthe not i ces Z hao al l egedl yr ece i ved w hi ch demand thats he rep o rtfo r IU D inse rt ion an d steri li za ti o n w ere u n au then ti ca ted. H o w ev er, w h il e the B IA p o in ted o u t th a t th e id e n tityd o c u m e n ts a n d b irth c e rtific a tes w e re u n a u th e n tica ted , it m ade no s i m i l arobs ervat i on w i th r es pectt o the not i ces Z hao r ece i ved; i ts t at ed onl yt hat she subm i t t ed the no t i ces. B ec au se th e B IA fa il ed to ad eq u atelyex p lai n it s rea so n ing fo r rejecti n g Z h ao ’s e v id e n c e a n d d e n y in g h e r m o tio n to re o p e n , w e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew , v a c a te the B I A ’ s or der , and r emand t he mat t ert o the B I A fori tt o r econs i derthe mot i on and pr ovi de a mor e compl et e ana l y s i s of the evi dence s ubm i t t ed. See Zheng, 549 F. 3d at272. T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s i s deni ed.