1 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- 4640

___________ D A N D O N G , 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 099- 683- 411) 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)

M ar ch 24, 2010 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed M ar ch 31, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

P et i t i on er, D an D on g, seeks r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’2

(“ B IA ” ) f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yh e r p e titio n . D ong i s a ci t i zen of

the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w ho has r es i ded unl aw ful l yi n t he U ni t ed St at es s i nce 2000. I n M ar ch 2006, s he mar r i ed M i ng L i n, and the coupl e had tw o chi l dr en, J as on and B obbyL i n. W hen the D epart m ent of H om el and Secur i tyl at eri ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns ther , D ong s ought a sy lu m a n d re late d re lief o n th e g ro u n d th a t, i f

re m o v e d to C h in a , sh e w o u ld b e f o rc ib ly s t er i l i zed be caus e s he had vi ol at ed C hi na’ s one- chi l d fami l ypl anni ng pol i cybygi vi ng b ir th to tw o c h ild re n in th is c o u n tr y .

Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng t hat D o n g h ad fa il ed to d em o n str ate tha t she h ad a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n u n d er 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) beca us e the evi dence di d notes t abl i s h thatherfea rof bei ng s ubj ect ed t o i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on athom e w as obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. See G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 563 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n part i cul ar , the I J concl uded thatD ong had fai l ed to show ei ther that s he w ou l d b e si ng l ed o ut forst eri l i zat i on or that C hina has a p att ern o r pra cti ce o f steril izi n g w o m en w h o return to the co u n tryw ith tw o fo reign -bo rn chi l dr en. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A ) . T he I J al s o deni ed D ong’ s r el at ed a p p lic a tio n s f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d re lie f

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 . D ong appea l ed t o t he B I A . I n addi t i on t o s eeki ng r evi ew of the I J ’ s rul i ng, D ong al s o s ubm i t t ed hundr eds of page s of document s t o the B I A

— m os tof w hi ch s he had al r eadys ubm i t t ed t o t he I J

— and r eques t ed i n the al t ernat i ve thatthe B I A r emand t heW e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). “[ W ]h e n th e B IA b o th 1 a d o p t s th e f

i n d i n g s o f

th e I J a n d d i s c u s s e s s o me o f th e b a s e s f

o rth e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , we have a uthor i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 3 m att erforthe I J t o addr es s the addi t i onal evi dence . U pon r evi ew , the B I A adopt ed and a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n , d e n ie d th e re q u e s t f o r a re m a n d , a n d d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l. D o n g n o w p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s ord er. 1

A . A ppl i cat i ons forA s y l um and W i thhol di ng of R emoval U pon r evi ew , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the deni al of D ong’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um . T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um on the gr ound thats he had a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on, D ong w as r equi r ed t o demonstr at e that : ( 1) herfea rof per s ecut i on i s genui ne; and ( 2) “a r eas onabl e per s on i n [her ] ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o the countryi n ques t i on. ” Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T o s at i s fythe s econd, s o- cal l ed “obj ect i ve pr ong, ” D ong had t o s how ei therthats he w oul d be i ndi vi dual l y“s i ngl ed out ” forper s ecut i on, orthat th e re is a “ p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e ” o f p e rs e c u tio n o f

s im ila rl ys itu a te d in d iv id u a ls . 8 C .F .R . § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A ) . T he age ncy ’ s fi ndi ngs on thes e ques t i ons “ar e conc l us i ve unl es s any re a s o n a b le a d

ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ); s e e a ls o 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 ).

Fi r s t , w e agr ee w i th t he I J and B I A thatD ong fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thats he w oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on under8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A ) , as theO n appea l , the governm entar gues thatD ong fai l ed t o exhaus tbefor e the 2 B I A the ar gum entthats he “ha d notbeen s i ngl ed out[forper s ecut i on] w i thi n the meani ng of the appl i cabl e r egul at i on. ” ( B r . 20. ) See A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 5 9 4

– 9 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (e x p lain in g th a t an a lien is re q u ire d to ra ise a n d e x h a u st h is re m e d ie s a s to e a c h c la im in o rd e r t o p re s e rv e h is ri g h t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f a ll c la im s ). T o the ext entthatthe governm enti s cl ai m i ng thatD ong cannotar gue forthe fi r s tt i m e on appea l thats he w as s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on i n the pas t , w e agr ee, al though w e do not re a d D o n g ’s b rie f

to b e m a k in g su c h a n a rg u m e n t. T o th e e x ten t th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is cl ai m i ng thatD ong fai l ed t o exhaus tthe ar gum entthats he w oul d be s i ngl ed outfor per s ecut i on i n t he futur e, w e di s agr ee; al though D ong di d purpor tt o l i m i therar gum ent befor e the B I A t o t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng thats he had f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce” of p erse cu ti o n , sh e n o n ethe less ch all en g ed the IJ’s d eterm ination that h er f o reign -bo rn c h i l d r e n w o u l d n o t“ c o u n t ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

C h i n a ’ s f

a m i l y p l a n n i n g p o l i c y— a d e te rm in a tio n th a t th e IJ m a d e in th e c o n te x t o f h e r “ s in g le d o u t” a n a lysis . 4 evi dence pr es ent ed di d nots how thats he had e vercome i nt o cont actw i th fami l ypl anni ng author i t i es i n t he pas t , orthatherfor ei gn- born chi l dr en w oul d nece s s ar i l y“count ” for purpos es of C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cyi n the futur e. A l though D ong ar gues on 2 appea l thata documenti s s ued bythe St at e D epart m entt i t l ed “Ti ps forT r avel er s t o the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na” c l ear l ydemonstr at es thatthe di s t i nct i on betw een c hi l dr en born i n the U ni t ed St at es and thos e born i n C hi na i s a “di s t i nct i on w i thouta di ffe r ence , ” (B r. 1 0 ) w e d isa g re e . T h is d o c u m e n t sta tes o n lyth a t ch ild re n b o rn in th e U n ited S tate s to C h in e se c iti z e n s “ a re n o t re c o g n ize d a s U .S . citize n s u n d e r C h in e se n a tio n a litylaw ;” it does notdi s cus s how thi s pol i cym ayorm aynotr el at e t o the nat i on’ s fami l ypl anni ng p o lic ie s . (A R 0 0 1 2 2 5 .) D o n g a lso a rg u e s th a t th e IJ a n d B IA “ ig n o re d p rio r p re c e d e n t” hol di ng thatchi l dr en born i n t he U ni t ed St at es ar e tr eat ed no di ffe r ent l ythan chi l dr en b o rn in C h in a . (B r. 1 1 .) C u rio u sly , h o w e v e r, th e o n lya u th o rityth a t D o n g c ites inD o n g also arg u es th at th e B IA erred in f ail ing to f

ind that the re co rd 3 evi dence demonstr at ed thats he fa ced pe r s ecut i on i n the form of exc es s i ve fi nes for vi ol at i ng the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . B as ed on ourr evi ew of D ong’ s admi ni s tr at i ve a p p e a l, h o w e v e r, w e c o n c lu d e th a t s h e f a ile d to f a ir ly p re s e n t th is a rg u m e n t to th e B IA . ( A R 000007–20. ) T her efor e, thi s ar gum enti s unexhaus t ed. See A bdul r ahman, 330 at 5 9 4

– 9 5 . 5 supp ortof thi s proposi t i on i s I n re J- W -S-, 24 I& N D ec. 18 5 (B IA 20 07 ), w hich hel d just th e o p p o s ite . W e al so agree w i th the I J and B IA that the record evidence d i d n ot es t abli sh th a t th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t en g a g e s in a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f ste rilizin g in d iv id u a ls wh o r e tu rn t o F u

j i a n P r o v i n c e a f

t e rg i v i n g b i r th t o two c h i l d r e n i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . As the I J not ed, “[o] n bal ance , the evi dence poi nt ed t o a mar ked dec r eas e i n enfor cementof the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cythr ough for ced a bor t i on and/ ors t er i l i zat i on and does not i ndi cat e thatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of s t er i l i zi ng i ndi vi dual s w ho r eturn t o C hi na a f ter h a v in g tw o c h ild re n in th e U n ited S tate s.” (A R 0 0 1 2 2 6 .) D o n g n o w a rg u e s th a t, i n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, the I J fai l ed t o gi ve ade quat e w ei ghtt o the fol l ow i ng evi dence : (1) a 2 0 0 5 rep o rtb ythe U n it ed N ati o n s H igh C o m m issi o n fo r R ef u g ee s; ( 2 ) a N ew Y o rk T i m es art i cl e r egar di ng the per s ecut i on of an a nt i - fami l y - pl anni ng advoca t e; and ( 3) var i ous C N N . com and A s i aN ew s art i cl es . W e have r evi ew ed thes e document s and cann ot s aythat theycom pell ed a rul i ng i n D on g’s favor; si m plyst at ed, no ne o f t hese document s es t abl i s hes thatC hi nes e ci t i zens w ho r eturn t o Fuj i an Pr ovi nce a ft ergi vi ng bi r th t o tw o chi l dr en i n t he U ni t ed St at es w i l l be for ci bl ys t er i l i zed. 3W e revi ew the B IA ’s den i al of p et i t i on ers ’ m oti on for r em and for abu se 4 o f d iscreti o n . S ee V ak k er v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 9 F . 3 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 6 Forthes e r eas ons , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the agenc y ’ s deni al of D ong’ s cl ai m foras y l um . Fur therm or e, beca us e D ong fai l ed t o s how thats he has a r eas onabl e fe arof futur e per s ecut i on underthe l ow erbur den of pr oof r equi r ed foras y l um , the age ncycorr ect l yconcl uded thats he w as nece s s ar i l yi nel i gi bl e for w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. S ee IN S v . C ard o za -F o n sec a, 48 0 U . S . 4 2 1 , 4 3 0

– 3 2 (19 8 7 ).

C . M ot i on t o R emand D ong al s o ar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng herm ot i on t o r emand. B eca us e ther e i s no expr es s s t atut oryauthor i zat i on fora mot i on t o r emand,

4 the B I A appr opr i at el ycons trued D ong’ s r eques tas a mot i on t o r eopen. See I n r e C oel ho, 20 I . & N . D ec. 464, 471 ( B I A 1992) . T he B I A deni ed D ong’ s m ot i on beca us e s he fa i l ed t o s at i s fythe s t andar d forr eopeni ng— i . e. , s he fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe addi t i onal 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 o r u n d is c o v e ra b le , s e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 1 ), o r t h a t th e e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h e d p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ility f

o r a s y lu m . Speci fi cal l y , the B I A found thata r emand w as notw arr ant ed bec aus e the maj or i tyof the ev iden ce that D o n g su b m itted h ad alread yb ee n co n side red b ythe IJ, pre -da ted th e IJ’s A pr i l 4, 2007 deci s i on, orconce r ned eve nt s thatt ook pl ace out s i de of the Fuj i an P ro v in c e . O n appea l , D ong ar gues that , contr aryt o the B I A ’ s cont ent i on, “[t ] heS p ec ifi ca ll y , D o n g iden ti fies the fo ll o w ing d o cu m en ts: (1) a N ew Y o rk 5 T im es a rt icl e d ated A u g u st 18 , 2 0 0 6 ; ( 2 ) a rep o rtfro m C N N . co m ab o u t th e g o v ern m en t’ s tr eatm entof C hi nes e w om en r eturni ng fr om T ai w an; ( 3) an A pr i l 27, 2006 r eportfr om the N at i onal Popul at i on and Fami l yPl anni ng C om m i s s i on of C hi na; ( 4) an af fi davi tfr om a C hi nes e nat i onal w ho w as i nvol unt ar i l ys t er i l i zed a ft err eturni ng fr om J apan; ( 5) an art i cl e fr om L i fe Si t e N ew s . com dat ed O ct ober26, 2005; ( 6) a r eportfr om T i m e. com dat ed Sept ember19, 2005; ( 7) an announc ementfr om the J i es hi T ow n Fam i l yPl anni ng O ffi ce c oncerni ng the fa m i l ypl anni ng campai gn; ( 8) an art i cl e fr om L i feSi t eN ew s . com d ated M ay2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ; ( 9 ) a f ly er f rom the F am il yP lann ing O ff ice o f C h an g L e C ity ; ( 1 0 ) a D ece m ber14, 2004 r eportfr om the U . S. H ous e I nt ernat i onal R el at i ons C om m i t t ee; ( 11) J ohn A i r d’ s Sept ember23, 2002 congr es s i onal t es t i m ony ; and ( 12) D r . A i r d’ s Sept ember 1 , 2 0 0 4 af

fid av it . (B r. 1 7

– 2 1 . ) W e not e thatD ong di d s ubm i ta new documentfr om the M a W ei D i s tr i ct 6 T i ng J i ang Tow n Fam i l yPl anni ng O ffi ce ( thatherfather - i n- l aw had obt ai ned on her behal f) thati ndi cat ed that , beca us e D ong had al r eadygi ven bi r th t o tw o chi l dr en, s he “ s h o u ld b e th e ta rg e t f

o r s te ri liz a tio n .” (A R 0 0 0 1 1 3 .) T h e B IA f o u n d th a t th is d o c u m e n t, w hi ch w as dat ed D ece m ber21, 2007, di d notpr ovi de a ba s i s forr eopeni ng the p roc ee d ing s b ec au se D o n g co u ld h av e so li cit ed itfro m the to w n p lann ing o ff ice b ef o re h e r h e a rin g in th e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt. In h e r b rie f , D o n g d o e s n o t d ire c tlyc h a llen g e th is concl us i on, buti ns t ead a r gues thatthe B I A ’ s cons i der at i on of thi s i s s ue cons t i tut ed im p ro p e r f

a c t-f in d in g o n re v iew . (B r. 1 6 .) D o n g f a ils to c ite a n ya u th o rityf o r th is ar gum ent , how ever , and i ti s di r ect l ycontr adi ct ed bythe appl i cabl e r egul at i on. See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 1 ). 7 d o c u m e n ts s u b m itt e d w e re re lev a n t an d m a ter ial a n d m o st w e re n o t av a ilab le o r k n o w n to th e P e tit io n e r a t th e tim e o f h e r in d iv id u a l h e a rin g .” (B r. 1 6 .) In su p p o rt o f th is argum ent, D on g ident i fi es tw el ve d ocu m ents . B ut D on g p res ented al l of these 5 d o c u m e n ts d u rin g h e r h e a rin g b e f o re th e IJ. (A R 0 0 1 2 1 6

– 1 9 .) C lea rlyth e n , the B IA d id noterri n concl udi ng thati tw as unnece s s aryt o r emand t he mat t ert o the I J t o cons i der th e m. 6 D ong al s o ar gues thatthe B oar d’ s deci s i on “i s i ncompl et e on i t s fac e andD ong does notchal l enge the B I A ’ s deni al of hercl ai m forr el i ef unde rt he 7 C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . 8 d o es n o t al low fo r m ea n ing fu l r ev iew b ythis C o u rt . ” (B r. 1 5 . ) C o n tr aryto D o n g ’s cont ent i on, how ever , w e fi nd thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on r efl ect s thati tfai r l ycons i der ed the r ecor d evi dence ; as w e have pr evi ous l yexpl ai ned, “[c ] ons i der at i on of al l evi dence does n o t r eq u ir e c o m m en t on all ev iden ce . ” T h u v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 0 F . 3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 6 n . 1 6 (3d C ir . 2007) ; cf. Z heng, 549 F. 3d 260, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng thatB I A ’ s deci s i on w as in a d e q u a te b e c a u s e it “ f a il[ e d ] t o o f

f e r e v e n a c u rs o ry re v ie w o f th e re c o rd ” ). W e have cons i der ed D ong’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s and conc l ude thatthey a r e wi th o u tme r i t . T h e r e f o r e , 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. 7