2008 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 3-6-2008 

# 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 . 06-4312

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_2008

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 2008 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" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1471. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1471T he H onor abl e G us t ave D i amond, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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 C as e N o: 06- 4312 S AI Z HU 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 P et i t i on for R eview from the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s, B I A N o. A 70- 897- 099 I m m i gr at i on J udge: T he H onor abl e C har l es H oneym an Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

February14, 2008 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges , D IA M O N D , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 6, 2008)

OP I NI ON S M I T H, C i r cui tJudge :T h e B IA h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r C h e n ’s m o tio n to re c o n s id e r p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1 1003. 2. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overthe B I A ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen b e c a u s e it is a f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . Sevoi an v. A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). C hen w as bor n i n C hangl e C i t y , Fuj i an Pr ovi nce on M ar ch 21, 1953. She and her 2 fi r s thus band, w ho di ed, have thr ee c hi l dr en i n C hi na; tw o s ons w er e born i n 1975 and 1977 r es pect i vel y , and a da ught erw as born i n 1981. I n heri ni t i al 1993 as y l um appl i cat i on, C hen s t at ed thatoffi ci al s had r emoved 3 f u r n i tu r e f

r o m h e rh o me a n d wa r n e d h e rt o h a v e s u r g e r y . Ch e n d i d n o ta s s e r tth a ta n I UD w as for ci bl yi ns er t ed unt i l s he amended heras y l um appl i cat i on i n 1996. 2 Sai Z hu C hen ( “C hen”) s eeks r evi ew of an or deri s s ued bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) on Sept ember5, 2006, w hi ch adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the deci s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng C hen’ s m ot i on t o r eopen he r depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs and r ei ns t at e heras y l um appl i cat i on. C hen ent er ed the U ni t ed 1 S t at es i n A pri l 19 93 and i n h er r equ estfor asy l um , she i nd i cat ed thatthe C hinese governm enthad per s ecut ed herbeca us e s he had r efus ed t o s ubm i tt o s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur es aft ert w i ce s ubm i t t i ng t o the i ns ert i on of an i ntr aut er i ne devi ce ( “I U D ”) . She c laim e d th a t sh e w a s f

irst su b jec ted to th e in se rtio n o f a n IU D in 1 9 7 9 f

o llo w in g th e b irth o f h e rs e c o n d c h i l d . No n e t h e l e s s , s h e c l a i me d th e I UD f e l l o u ta n d th a ts h e b e c a me 2 p re g n a n t ag a in , d e liv e rin g a d a u g h ter in 1 9 8 1 . A f ter th is d e liv e ry , C h e n w a s s u b jec ted to y etanotherpr ocedur e t o have the I U D r epl ace d. She s t at ed i n heramended as y l um appl i cat i on t hats he w as for ced t o putherthi r d chi l d up foradopt i on i n 1981 beca us e the

3 babycoul d notbe pl ace d on herhous ehol d r egi s t er . Pr i ort o fl eei ng fr om C hi na i n 1993, C hen bel i eved the C hi nes e G overnm entw as pr epar i ng t o have he rs t er i l i zed.3

I n J anuary1997, C hen w as s erved w i t h an O r dert o Show C aus e cha r gi ng thats he w as s ubj ectt o depor t at i on beca us e s he ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as an al i en w i t hout i ns pect i on. 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) ( “A n al i en pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i t hout bei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed, orw ho arr i ves i n t he U ni t ed St at es atanyt i m e orpl ace ot her t han as des i gnat ed byt he A t t or neyG ener al , i s i nadmi s s i bl e. ”) . I n A ugus t2001, C hen m arr i ed G eor ge C hen ( “G eor ge”) , a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. T he mar r i age pr om pt ed G eor ge t o fi l e a vi s a pet i t i on on herbehal f, w hi ch al l ow ed C hen t o pr ocee d w i t h a cons ul arpr oces s . A ft eri ni t i al l yfi l i ng a mot i on t o adj ourn herdepor t at i on pr ocee di ngs w hi ch w as gr ant ed i n February2004, C hen fi l ed anotherm ot i on t o adj our n r emoval pr ocee di ngs and s t at ed: “Even i f unabl e t o obt ai n t hi r d countr ypr oces s i ng pr i ort o her in d iv id u a l h e a rin g . . . sh e a g re e [ s] to a c c e p t v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re b e f o re th is C o u rt d u e to t he l i kel i hood of s ucce s s , as s he ca n demonstr at e a bona fi de mar r i age t o a U . S. ci t i zen. ” O n A pri l 12 , 20 05 , t he IJ w i t hd rew C hen ’s app l i cat i on for asy l um and grant ed h er r equ est f o r a v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re w ith in a y e a r. H o w e v e r, C h e n su b se q u e n tlyf iled a m o tio n to r eopen de por t at i on pr ocee di ngs forr ei ns t at ementof heras y l um appl i cat i on i n M ar ch 2006. She di vor ced he rhus band, a U . S. ci t i zen, i n J anuary2006. C hen r eques t ed thatt he I J r ei ns t at e and r eopen he rcas e t o pur s ue as y l um bas ed on “the bi r t h contr ol r el at ed per s ecut i on t hats he s uffe r ed i n C hi na. ” O n A pr i l 17, 2006, t he I J deni ed C hen’ s m ot i on t o r eopen. T he I J det erm i ned that hers econd mar r i age t o a U . S. ci t i zen thatended i n di vor ce w as i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fy4

r eopeni ng t he pr ocee di ngs and, fur therm or e, thatC hen’ s age, m ar i t al s t atus , and thr ee adul tchi l dr en di ct at ed thatt he pos s i bi l i t yof a f or ced s t er i l i zat i on w as “both r emot e and s pecul at i ve att hi s poi nti n t i m e. ” C hen fi l ed an a ppeal of the I J ’ s deni al t o t he B I A . T he B I A di s m i s s ed C hen’ s appea l . I tconcl uded thatthe I J had appr opr i at el yfound thats he had notdemonstr at ed a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. T he B I A fur t her expl ai ned thati tw as notper s uaded thatC hen w as ei t her“pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bl e foras y l um b a se d o n p a st f

o rc ib le in se rtio n ” o f

a n IU D , o r th a t f

o rc ib le in se rtio n o f

a n IU D w a s “ in t h e s a me c a t e g o r ya s a f o r c i b l e a b o r t i o n o rf

o r c e d s t e r i l i z a t i o n . ” I tr e c o g n i z e d th a ts o me Co u r t s o f

Ap p e a l s h a d c o n s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e o f wh e t h e rf

o r c i b l e i n s e r t i o n o f

I UDs cons t i tut ed per s ecut i on under8 C . F. R . § 1101( a) ( 42) , butnot ed thatthe Thi r d C i r cui thad y ett o addr es s t he i s s ue. T hi s t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. B eca us e the B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed t he I J ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen, and s etfor t h i t s ow n br i ef r at i onal e, w e r evi ew t he d e c is io n s o f

b o th th e B IA a n d th e IJ . C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e r evi ew anyfi ndi ngs of fa ctfors ubs t ant i al evi dence and the ul t i m at e deni al foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S e e Ko ry tn y u k v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). An a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n w i l l b e f

o u n d i f t h e d e n i a l o f

a m o t i o n t o r e o p e n “ i s a rb i t r a r y, i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” F i l j a v. G onz al es , 4 4 7 F . 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . We a re m in d f

u l th a t m o tio n s to re o p e n a re g e n e ra lly d is f a v o re d . Ab u d u v . I

NS , 485 U . S. 94, 1 0 7 (1 9 8 8 ).5

C hen ar gues t hatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byaff i r m i ng the deni al of her m ot i on t o r eopen. She as s er t s t hatt he I J ’ s fi ndi ng thats he di d notes t abl i s h t hats he had a w el l founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on w as nothi ng m or e than s pecul at i on and conj ectur e. B eca us e ther e i s not hi ng of r ecor d t o contr adi cthercl ai m thatthe I U D s s he had w er e for ci bl yi ns er t ed, s he cont ends ther e i s no s uppor tforthe B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on th a t sh e f a iled to m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f. In a d d iti o n , sh e c o n ten d s th a t th e re f u sa l to gr antherm ot i on t o r eopen c onfl i ct s w i t h t he B I A ’ s deci s i on i n a ca s e r emanded bythe S e v e n th C ir c u it. See Zheng v . G onz al es , 4 0 9 F .3 d 8 0 4 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e f in d n o e rr o r i n th e B IA ’s a f f ir m a n c e o f

th e IJ ’s d e n ia l o f

th e m o tio n to re o p e n . T he det erm i nat i on t hatC hen di d nothave a w el l founded f earof for ced s t er i l i zat i on w as noti r r at i onal i n l i ghtof C hen’ s w i l l i ngnes s i n 2005 t o w i t hdr aw herappl i cat i on for as y l um and t o vol unt ar i l ydepartt o C hi na, and C hen’ s age a nd ci r cumst ance s w hen s he fi l ed herm ot i on t o r eopen. A l t hough C hen r el i es on Zhengas aut ho ri t ythat s he h as a v iab le c laim th a t w a rra n ted re o p e n in g h e r a p p lica tio n , sh e f a ils to re c o g n ize th a t Zheng ’s per s uas i venes s i n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce is lim ited f o r se v e ra l re a so n s. F irst, th e f a c ts in Zhengar e di s t i ngui s habl e as t he al i en w as onl ythi r t ys i x y ear s ol d and the B I A as s um ed th a t h e r te stim o n yth a t sh e w a s re p e a ted lyf o rc e d to h a v e a n IU D in se rte d , d e sp ite s uffe r i ng compl i cat i ons aft ert he fi r s tpr ocedur e and ha vi ng the I U D r emoved on t hr ee occa s i ons , w as cr edi bl e. Second, t he B I A al s o as s um ed thatthe al i en’ s theoryof per s ecut i on w as cogni zabl e eve n t hough no cour tof appe al s had y ett o w ei gh i n on6

w h e th e r a n a lien c a n e sta b lish p e rse c u tio n o n th e b a sis th a t sh e w a s f o rc e d to su b m it t o th e im p la n ta tio n o f

a n IU D . R e m a n d w a s re q u ir e d , th e S e v e n th C ir c u it c o n c lu d e d , beca us e the deni al of Zheng’ s cl ai m w as uns uppor t ed and unr eas oned i n l i ghtof the oper at i ve as s um pt i ons . T hes e as s um pt i ons , how ever , ar e notpr es enti n t hi s cas e. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyC hen’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s or deraff i r m i ng th e IJ ’s re f

u s a l to re o p e n h e r a p p lic a tio n f o r a s y lu m .