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 4-23-2009 

# Liu 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 . 07-3159

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 " L iu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1493. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1493NOT 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. 07- 3159

___________ M E I F ANG L I U, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

__________________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 78- 840- 583) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

_____________________________ 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 22, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 23, 2009)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM M ei Fang L i u pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) or derdeny i ng herm ot i on t o r eopen. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antherpet i t i on.T heyar e: ( 1) a 2003 Fuj i an Pr ovi nce A dm i ni s tr at i ve D eci s i on ( A . 53- 54) ; ( 2) a M ay22, 1 2 0 0 3 C h an g le C ityF am il yP lann ing A d m inistrati o n A d m inistrati v e O p inion (A . 5 6 -57 ); ( 3) a J ul y1999 “Q & A forC hangl e C i t yFam i l yPl anni ng I nform at i on H andbook” ( A . 62- 64) ; ( 4) a D ece m ber27, 2005, C om m uni s tPar t yO ffi ci al D i r ect i ve ( A . 67- 68) ; ( 5) an un dated “m et ho d fo r i m plem entat i on of L i an Ji ang C ou nty ’s B i rth C on t rol R egu l at i on s” (A .7 4 ); (6 ) a N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 G e n e ra l O f f ice o f th e N a tio n a l P o p u latio n a n d F a m ily (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 I. M s . L i u i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na. She arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n 2001 and app l i ed fo r as y l um , w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e ( “C A T ”) , butul t i m at el ypr ocee ded onl yon a cl ai m underC A T thats he fe ar ed t or tur e forhavi ng l eftC hi na i l l egal l y . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed thatcl ai m and or der ed herr emoval t o C hi na, and the B I A aff i r m ed on J une 10, 2003. L i u di d not p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. L i u r emai ned i n t hi s countr y , began a r el at i ons hi p w i t h anothernat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, and gave bi r t h t o t w o chi l dr en, the s econd of w hom w as born i n 2006. I n 2007, s he fi l ed a mot i on w i t h t he B I A t o r eopen he rpr ocee di ng on t he gr ounds thatthe bi r t h of h er se co n d ch il d w o u ld su b ject he r t o C h ina’s c o erc ive f am il yp lann ing p o li cy . In part i cul ar , s he cl ai m ed thatci r cumst ance s had cha nged i n herhom e pr ovi nce of Fuj i an beca us e author i t i es had begun c ount i ng for ei gn- bor n chi l dr en forpurpos es of C hi na’ s s ocal l ed “one chi l d” pol i cyand thats he w oul d be t ar get ed forfor ced s t er i l i zat i on beca us e of the bi r th of hers econd c hi l d. L i u s uppor t ed thi s cl ai m , i nt eral i a, w i t h ni ne pi ece s of evi dence thatw e dee m r el evantforpurpos es of ourdi s pos i t i on. B yor deri s s ued J une 19, 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on di r ect i ve r egar di ng the tr eatm entof U ni t ed St at es - born chi l dr en ( A. 7 7 ) ; ( 7 ) a n Oc t o b e r1 2 , 1 9 9 7 M i n i s t r yo f P u b l i c S e c u r i t yd i r e c t i v e r e g a r d i n g th e s a me ( A . 78- 79) ; ( 8) new s paperar t i cl es fr om 2002 and 2005, r es pect i vel y , r egar di ng for ced a nd thr eat ened a bor t i ons i n C hi na ( A . 83- 84, 87- 88) ; and ( 9) a 2003 af fi davi tof J ohn Shi el ds A ir d w ith s u p p o rt in g d o c u m e n ta tio n (A .9 1 -1 9 7 ). L i u i ni t i al l yar gued thats he w as ent i t l ed t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on 2 r egar dl es s of w hethers he coul d s at i s fythes e r equi r ement s . I n hers uppl ement al br i ef, h o w e v e r, sh e c o n c e d e s th a t th is a rg u m e n t is f o re c lo se d b yY in g L iu v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 5 5 5 F .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 0 -5 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), an d h a s w ith d ra w n it. L iu a lso in iti a llya rg u e d th a t, e v e n if su c c e ss iv e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n s a re su b jec t to th e re stric tio n s p lac e d o n m o tio n s to re o p e n , s u c c e s s iv e 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 C A T a re n o t. (c o n tin u e d ...) 3 2 0 0 7 , t h e BI A d e n i e d L i u ’ s mo t i o n . L i u p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. II. A. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of r e o p e n i n g f

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n , a n d m a y n o td i s tu rb i t s ru l i n g u n l e s s i tw a s “ ‘ a rb i t r a r y, i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ’ ” Zheng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 549 F. 3d 260, 264- 65 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . B eca us e Li u fi l ed herm ot i on m or e than 90 day s aft erherfi nal or der of r emoval , s he w as r equi r ed t o s how thati tw as “‘ bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the countr yof nat i onal i t yori n t he countr yt o w hi ch deport at i on has been or der ed’ ” and e vi dence t hati s “‘ m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en d is c o v e re d o r p re s e n te d a t th e p re v io u s h e a ri n g .’” Id . (q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii)). In a d d iti o n , the B IA m a yd e n ya m o tio n to re o p e n if it fa ils to m a k e o u t a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forr el i ef. See i d. at265. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 L i u does notcl ai m t hatt hi s ar gum ents ur vi ves ourdeci s i on i n Y i ng L i u and has not otherw i s e r enew ed i t , butw e do notr eac h t he i s s ue bec aus e Li u di d notr ai s e the arg u m en t bef

o re the B IA . S ee L in v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 4 B. In Z h e n g , w e re c e n tlyg ra n ted tw o p e tit io n s f o r re v iew f

iled b yC h in e se n a tio n a ls w ho had fi l ed m oti on s t o reope n si m i l ar t o the m oti on ati ssue here. L i ke L i u, tho se pet i t i oner s had bee n or der ed r emoved butl at erhad more than one c hi l d i n t he U ni t ed St at es and s oughtr eopeni ng on t he bas i s of hei ght ened e nfor cementof fa m i l ypl anni ng p o licie s in F u

jian p ro v in c e . A lso lik e L iu , the ysu p p o rte d th e ir m o tio n s w ith m u lti p le pi ece s of evi dence . I n eac h cas e, how ever , the B I A deni ed the mot i on w i t houts o m uch as m ent i oni ng t hatevi dence , l etal one pr ovi di ng a r eas oned expl anat i on forw hyi tdi d not fi nd the evi dence per s uas i ve. See i d. at268- 69, 70- 71. Forthatr eas on, w e vac at ed ea ch or derand r emanded fort he B I A t o “make a more compl et e ana l y s i s of the evi dence [pet i t i oner s ] s ubm i t t ed. ” I d. at272. T he B I A ’ s or deri n t hi s cas e s uffe r s fr om the s ame defi ci enci es and r equi r es the s ame r es ul t . T he B I A concl uded thatr eopeni ng w as notw arr ant ed both beca us e Li u had notm ade outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and be caus e s he had nots how n t hatcondi t i ons i n C hi na had cha nged. A s w i t h t he pet i t i oner s i n Z heng, how ever , the B I A nei t herm ent i oned nor di s cus s ed anyof Li u’ s evi dence . I ns t ead, i tm er el yci t ed ea r l i erdeci s i ons , i ncl udi ng M at t erof J - W - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 185 ( B I A 2007) , and M att erof C - C - , 23 I . & N . D ec.T hr oughouti t s or der , t he B I A i ncorr ect l yr efe r r ed t o M s . L i u i n t he masc ul i ne. T he 3 G overnm entbl ames thi s m i s t ake on Li u’ s couns el , w ho di d t he s ame i n por t i ons of the m ot i on t o r eopen. O n t he veryfi r s tpage of thatm ot i on, how ever , couns el m ade c l eart hat L i u i s i n f

a c ta wo ma n a n d t h a th e rc l a i m i s b a s e d o n h e rh a v i n g g i v e n b i r t h t o two c h ild re n . (A .1 0 .) E v e n if h e h a d n o t, th e B IA ’s f a ilu re to a sc e rta in L iu ’s g e n d e r is tr oubl i ng. W hetherornotL i u’ s genderi s r el evantt o hercl ai m , w hi ch w e l eave t o t he B I A t o deci de i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , the B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o as cert ai n hergenderr ei nfor ces our i nabi l i tyt o concl ude thati tgave he revi dence the cons i der at i on i tw as due. 5 899 ( B I A 2006) , and conc l uded thatthe “e vi dence he [s i c] has s ubm i t t ed” i s not “per s uas i ve of hi s [s i c] cl ai m . ” ( B I A O r derat2. ) T hus , as i n Z heng, the B I A ’ s or der cons i s t s of a “ s er i es of conc l us or ys t at ement s , and fa i l s t o offe reven a cur s oryr evi ew of the r ecor d. ” Zheng, 549 F. 3d at271. 3 T he G overnm entat t empt s t o di s t i ngui s h Z heng on the bas i s of di ffe r ence s betw een th e e v id e n c e th e p e tit io n e rs h a d su b m itt e d in th a t ca se a n d th e e v id e n c e th a t L iu su b m itted in this on e. A s the G o v ern m en t correc tl yn o tes, w e re m an d ed in Z h en g in p art beca us e the evi dence t he pet i t i oner s offe r ed w as notati s s ue i n J - W - S- orC - C - , and the B I A ’ s m er e ci t at i on of thos e opi ni ons thus di d noti ndi cat e thati tactual l yhad cons i der ed th a t ev id e n c e . S e e id . at 2 6 8 -6 9 , 2 7 0 n .7 . T h re e o f L iu ’s p iec e s o f

e v id e n c e , b yc o n tra st, w e re d is c u s s e d in J -W -S - ( th o u g h in th e c o n te x t o f a d if f e re n t e v id e n tia ry p re s e n ta tio n ). B ut , even a s s um i ng t hatt he B I A ’ s m er e ci t at i on of J - W - S- i n L i u’ s cas e i ndi cat es thati tadequa t el ycons i der ed thes e thr ee pi ece s of evi dence , thatl eave s s i x otherpi ece s of evi dence thatt he B I A di d notdi s cus s . T he G overnm entar gues thatthr ee of thos e pi ece s p re -d a te d L iu ’s re m o v a l h e a ri n g a n d th u s d id n o t p ro v id e a p ro p e r b a s is f o r r e o p e n in g .6

See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) . T hough w e s ee no r ecor d evi dence on t hi s i s s ue otherthan the document s ’ dat es , t hatm ayw el l be the ca s e. T he B I A , how ever , di d notdeny r eopeni ng on t hatgr ound and di d notaddr es s w hetheranypart i cul arevi dence w as previ ou sl yavail able. A ccordi ng l y , the B IA m ustm ake thatdeterm i nati on i n the fi rs t i ns t ance . See K onan v. A t t ’ yG en. , 432 F. 3d 497, 501 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[A ] r evi ew i ng c o u rt is p o w e rl e s s to d e c id e in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e is s u e s th a t a n a g e n c yd o e s n o t r e a c h .” ). See al s o Z heng, 549 F. 3d at264- 65 ( r emandi ng w her e B I A fai l ed t o di s cus s , i nt eral i a, ev iden ce that p re-d ated o n e p eti ti o n er’s fin al ord er o f re m o v al). T h e G o v e rn m e n t als o a rg u e s th a t th e re m a in in g th re e p iec e s o f e v id e n c e , w h ich it c o n c e d e s a re b o th “ n e w ” a n d p re v io u slyu n c o n sid e re d b yth e B IA , are “ e ss e n tially i dent i cal ” t o ot herevi dence cons i der ed i n J - W - S- beca us e theycont ai n s i m i l ar in f o rm a tio n . T h e se p iec e s o f e v id e n c e a re th e D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 C o m m u n ist P a rty O f f icia l D ire c tiv e (A .6 7 -6 8 ), w h ich th e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s e c h o e s th e 1 9 9 9 C h a n g le C ity Q & A bookl et( A . 62- 64) , and tw o new s paperar t i cl es cont ai ni ng r epor t s of for ced abor t i ons ( A . 83- 84, 87- 88) , “i s ol at ed exa m pl es ” of w hi ch the G overnm entcont ends t he B IA w a s a w a re in J-W -S -. A s in Z h e n g , h o w e v e r, th e B IA sim p lyd id n o t h a v e th is evi dence befor e i tw hen i tdeci ded J - W - S- . I n par t i cul ar , i tdi d notdi s cus s the 2005 C om m uni s tPar t yO ffi ci al D i r ect i ve, w hi ch s t at es that , eff ect i ve J anuary1, 2006, for ei gnb o rn c h ild re n “ w ith o u t ex c e p tio n , sh o u ld b e in c lu d e d in o u r to w n ’s f a m ilyp lan n in g g o a l” and that“w om en w i t h r epr oduct i ve age , w ho m eetthe ‘ I U D I ns ert i on’ s t andar ds , s hal l be7

in s e rt e d w ith th e IU D . F o r t h o s e w h o [ a re ] p re g n a n t o u t o f th e p la n , s h a ll b e a b o rt e d . O ne partyof the coupl e s hal l be s t er i l i zed i f the natur e of the vi ol at i on i s verys er i ous . ” ( A . 68. ) W e r ej ectt he G overnm ent ’ s s ugges t i on thatthe B I A s houl d be dee m ed t o have cons i der ed thi s evi dence i n L i u’ s cas e mer el ybeca us e i tar guabl yechoe s a 1999 d o cu m en t th at th e B IA co n side red , in a d iffe ren t evid en ti aryco n text, in J-W -S -. F in a lly , the G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t L iu su b m itt e d n o “ p e rso n a l ev id e n c e ,” a s d id the pet i t i oner s i n Z heng, t hatt he r ecor d befor e the B I A her e w as ot herw i s e l es s ext ens i ve than in Z h en g , an d that, co n seq u en tl y , itw as p rop er f o r th e B IA to d ispo se o f L iu’s m ot i on w i t houtengagi ng i n t he ana l y s i s w e r equi r ed i n Z heng. See Zheng, 549 F. 3d 269 n. 6 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng t he Second Ci r cui t ’ s aff i r m ance of a c ur s oryB I A deci s i on i n W ang v. B IA , 4 3 7 F .3 d 2 7 0 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), o n th e b a sis o f “ th e m o re e x ten siv e re c o rd in th is c a s e ” ). O u r d e c is io n in Z h e n g , h o w e v e r, d id n o t tu rn o n th e p re s e n ta tio n o f “ p e rs o n a l,” as o p p o sed to “b ac k g rou n d , ” e v iden ce . S ee id. at2 6 8 (ex p lai n ing that the B IA h as “ ‘a dutyt o expl i ci t l ycons i deranycountr ycondi t i ons evi dence s ubm i t t ed byan appl i cantt hat m at er i al l ybear s on hi s ’ ” orhercl ai m ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . N ordi d ourdeci s i on i n Z heng p u rp o rt to e sta b lish so m e m in im u m e v id e n tiary th re sh o ld f o r re q u irin g th e B IA to ex p resslyd iscu ss a p eti ti o n er’s ev iden ce . S ee id. 26 8 . W e a ck n o w ledg e tha t L iu’s sh o w ing h ere is l ess s u b stan ti al th an the p eti ti o n ers’ in Z h en g . A s in tha t case , h o w ev er, L i u s ubm i t t ed fa rm or e evi dence t han i n W ang, 437 F. 3d at274 ( di s cus s i ng the “thr ee pi ece s of evi dence ” bef or e the B I A ) , and, w e thi nk, evi dence s uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i al t hat8

th e B IA s h o u ld a t le a s t h a v e a c k n o w le d g e d a n d d is c u s s e d it. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antt he pet i t i on forr evi ew , vaca t e the B I A ’ s or der , and re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n a n d o u r d e c is io n in Z h e n g . A s w e di d i n Z heng, w e emphas i ze thatourrul i ng i s bas ed s ol el yon “the pr ocedur al s hor t comi ngs t hatw e fi nd exi s t ed i n t he B I A pr ocee di ngs , and thus w e do noti m pl yt hat the B I A r eac hed an i ncorr ectr es ul tpr edi cat ed on the r ecor ds befor e i t [. ] ” Zheng, 549 F. 3d at272.