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 6-25-2009 

# Lin v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3676

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1136. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1136NOT 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- 3676 XUE M I E L I 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 Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 73- 050- 043 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e D onal d V i ncentFel i s e) Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 11, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J une 25, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M.L i n’ s aff i davi ti n s uppor tof herfi r s tas y l um pet i t i on s t at ed thats he had one daught er 1 and thats he w as pr egnantw i t h a s econd c hi l d and fe ar ed thats he w oul d be for ced t o have an abor t i on and pos s i bl ybe s t er i l i zed i f r eturned t o C hi na. A . R . 399. H erbr i ef t o t he B IA o n d ire c t ap p e a l co n tain s a sim ilar c laim . A .R . 1 7 9 . H o w e v e r, th e IJ a p p a re n tly h e a r d n o t e s t i mo n yc o n c e r n i n g t h i s c l a i m, a n d d i d n o tc o mme n to n t h e c l a i m. 2 

### Xu e M ei L inp etitio n s f

o r rev iewo f

ano rd er o f

th e B o ardo f

Imm ig ratio nAp p eals ( BI A or Boar d) , whi c h de ni e d he r m ot i on t o r e ope n he r

a s ylum c a s e . W e wi l lde ny

the pe t i t i on. I . Li n, anat i ve and c i t i z e n of Chi na , or i gi na l l y a ppl i e d for a s ylum and othe r

r e l i e f on th e g ro un d s o f

p o litical o p in io nrelatin g to h er p articip atio ninth e stu d en t d em o cratic m o v em en t inh er h o m e co un try . T h e IJ f o un dth at L inliedto th e co urt an dth at ev enif 1 

### she wer e foundcr edible , her experi ence s did no t c on st it ute per se cuti on . The BIA af f irm edw ith o ut o p in io no nAu g u st 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 . Year s l at er , on April27 , 200 7, Lin f il ed a m otion to reopen andto file a succ es si ve as ylum

applic at ion, cl ai m ing that s he was an unw ed m other of two chil dren bo rn in the Unite d S tate s. Sh e a ss erte d that the m otion w as exem pt from the ninety-day ti m e r es tric ti ononm otions to re op en becauseher motion w as base d o n chang ed coun tr y co n d itio n s inC h in a an db asedo nf acts n o t p rev io u sly

av ailab le to h er. S p ecif

ically , L in c ont e nde d that

s he woul d l i ke l y

be pe r s e c ut e d a s avi ol at or of the one - c hi l d r

ul e of the fam i l y pl anni ng l aw, be c aus e e nfor c e m e nt of the l aw by

for c ibl e s t e r i l i z at i on or

abort i on was bec om ing m ore frequent in Fuj ian P rovince, her hom e province. Lin argued in h erW e not e t hatt hi s pi ece of evi dence pr edat es t he I J ’ s deci s i on i n L i n’ s cas e, and that 2 L i n di d notas s er tt hatt hi s pi ece of evi dence w as unavai l abl e atherpr evi ous hear i ng. 3 

### m otion to reopen that the Un it ed Stat es Co urt of App ea ls fo r the SecondCirc uit had reco g n izedn ewev id en ce sh o w in g a ch an g e inco un try co n d itio n s–th at is, a n ewp o licy in F u j ianP ro v in ce w ithreg ardto en f o rcem en t o f

b irthco n tro l law s o nco up les w h o se chil dren were born abroad. Lin n oted that repo rt s had earl ie r s ho wnthat spec ia l pr i vi l e ge s we r e e xt e nde d t o r e t urni ng ove r s e a s c oupl e s wi th c hi l dr e n born abr oa d, A. R. 37 6-77 (199 8 U .S. State Departm ent Profile of Asylum Clai m s for Ch ina) ; but that such wa s no l onge r

the c a s e . I n s upport

of he r m ot i on t o r e ope n, Li n i nc lude d an a ffi davi t by dem og ra ph er Dr. J oh n A ird, A.R. 49 -70; a 200 6 F uj ian P rovince family planning no ti ce , st at ing f orei gn -born childre n o f C hinese nati on al s wou ld be coun te d the sam e a s Chi ne s e - born c hi l dr e n for fam i l y pl anni ng pur

pos e s , A. R. 71- 76; aSt at e De partm e nt Co nsular Info rm at ion S heet

from 20 04 , i nd ic at ing that China do es no t r ec og nize du al c i t i z e ns hip, A. R. 77- 91; the Fam i l y Pl anni ng Re gul at i ons of Fuji an Pr ovi nc e fr om No vem ber 200 0 along with Qu es ti on s andAn swer s ( Q&A), A.R. 92-11 4; as wellas 2 

### num e r ous ne ws art i c l e s , i nc ludi ng s om e r e c ount i ng for c e d abort i ons and/ or s t e r i l i z at i ons inS h an d o n g p ro v in ce, (see A .R . 4 7 , listin g b ack g ro un din f o rm atio nsub m itted ). L in a l s o i nc lude d doc um e nt at i on of he r c hi l dr e n’ s bi rths ; al e tt e r fr om afr i e nd, r e c ount i ng how offi c i a l s ha d r e c e nt l y for c e d he r

t o have an abort i on, A. R. 30- 37; and al e tt e r fr om an older c ou si n ind ic at ing that s he was forcibly st eril iz ed and h ad to pay a l arge fine,L in d id n o t ra ise th e iss u e o f re lief u n d e r th e C A T in h e r o p e n in g b rie f in th is C o u rt; 3 the issu e is t h u s w aive d . C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 1 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). I n gener al , a mot i on t o r eopen mustbe fi l ed no l at ert han ni netyday s aft ert he dat e of 4 t he fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i on. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . T he gene r al rul e i s s ubj ect to so m e e x c e p tio n s, su c h a s f o r c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s, if p ro f f e re d e v id e n c e is m at er i al , w as notavai l abl e, and coul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed att he ea r l i er h ea ri n g . 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii ). T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w as s t ay ed pendi ng t he C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n s ever al s i m i l ar 5 cas es . T hos e ca s es have be en dec i ded, and the part i es have f i l ed s uppl ement al br i efs add res si ng t ho se deci si on s. 4 

### A. R. 39- 45. Li n a l s o s ought t o fi l e ac l a i m

pur s uant t o the Uni t e d Nat i ons Conve nt i on Aga i ns t Tort ur e ( CAT) , ar gui ng that

for c ibl e s t e r i l i z at i on and abort i on ar e form s of tort ure. 3 

### OnAu gu st

21 , 200 7, the BIA denied the m otion. Th e Board fo un d that Lin’s m o tio nlack edsu f

f icien t relev an t m aterial ev id en ce to sh o wch an g edco un try co n d itio n s, and thus the m ot i on wa s t i m e - barr e d be c aus e i t di d not fa l lwi thi n any

e xc e pt i ons t o the t i m e l i m i t at i on. L i n 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. 4 5 II. 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 t he deni al of a m ot i on t o r eopen f

oran abus e of di s cr et i on. L i u v. A t t or neyG ener al , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). In a d d it ion , w e u p h o ld the B IA ’s fa ctua l determ ination s if they are s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . I d. W e re jec t L in ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e r c a se is s im ilar to Z h e n g v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 549 F. 3d 260 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , w her e w e vac at ed the deni al of m ot i ons t o r eopen ba s ed on5

t he B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o di s cus s t he evi dent i aryr ecor d. H er e, t he B I A di s cus s ed mostof t he document aryevi dence pr ovi ded byL i n. A l though L i n i s corr ectt hatt he B I A di d not sp ec ifi ca ll ym en ti o n so m e o f h er su b m issi o n s, this i s n o t a ca se li k e Z h en g w h ere the B IA di d l i t t l e more t han quot e pas s ages fr om an ea r l i erdeci s i on w i t houtaddr es s i ng t he e v id e n c e c o n ta in e d in th e re c o rd b e f o re it. I d . a t 2 6 8 -6 9 . F irst, th e B o a rd f

o u n d th a t ith a d p re v io u slyre jec ted so m e o f

th e e v id e n c e L in pr ovi ded w i t h herm ot i on; s peci fi cal l y , t he A i r d aff i davi tand otherdocument at i on ci t ed i n S h o u Yu n g Gu o v . Go n z a l e s , 4 6 3 1 0 9 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . I n M a t t e ro f S - Y- G- , 2 4 I . & N. D ec. 247 ( B I A 2007) , w hi ch w as t he B oar d’ s deci s i on aft ert he Second Ci r cui t ’ s r emand i n Shou Y ung G uo, t he B I A s peci fi cal l yfound t hatD r . A i r d’ s aff i davi tw as not per s uas i ve i n es t abl i s hi ng a cha nge i n fami l ypl anni ng pol i cyorenfor cementi n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. Second, t he B oar d her e al s o s peci fi cal l yfound t hatt he 

### 20 06 Fu jian Prov ince fam ily planning no ti ce L in p rov ided w as v erysim il ar to a 2 0 0 3 d o cu m en t th at t h e B o ard had pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed i n M at t erof S- Y - G - . T he B oar d fur t hers peci fi cal l ydi s cus s ed and r ej ect ed the l et t er s L i n s ubm i t t ed bec aus e theyl acke d i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y . W e do notfi nd t hatt he B oar d abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n t hatr egar d. L i n ar gues t hatt he B oar d “compl et el yi gnor ed the St at e D epart m entC ons ul ar In f o rm a tio n S h e e t th a t re tu rn in g c h ild re n b o rn in th e U .S . w ith C h in e se n a tio n a l p a re n tsT he G over nm entm i s t akenl ys t at es t hatL i n di d noti ncl ude thi s evi dence w i t h her 6 m ot i on t o r eopen. R es p. Supp. B r . at7. 6 ar e t o be tr eat ed equa l l yas C hi nes e nat i onal chi l dr en, ” and “f ai l ed t o r evi ew ot her 6 c re d ib le n e w s re p o rts o n th e w o rse n in g c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s a n d a b u se o f h u m a n rig h ts in th e im p lem e n tatio n o f

th e b irth c o n tro l law s a n d p o licyo f C h in a in th e re c o rd .” P e t. S up p. B r. at2. A l t ho ug h w e hav e rem and ed w here t he B oard ha s “fai l [ed] t o d i scuss m o st of the e v iden ti aryrec o rd,” se e Z h en g , 5 4 9 F . 3 d at 26 9 ; w e d o n o t r eq u ir e the B o ard

“ to w rite a n e x e g e sis o n e v e ryc o n ten tio n ” ra ise d b yth e m o v a n t, se e S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 290 F. 3d 166, 178 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he evi dence t hatL i n s ay s t he B oar d i gnor ed i s not nece s s ar i l ym at er i al t o L i n’ s m ot i on. T he C ons ul arI nfor m at i on Sheets t at ed thatC hi na r egar ds chi l dr en of Chi nes e nat i onal s t o be C hi nes e ci t i zens , and does notr ecogni ze a ny ci t i zens hi p t he chi l dr en mayhave a cqui r ed atbi r t h, s uch as U . S. ci t i zens hi p, s ee A . R . 78; butt he C ons ul arI nfor m at i on Sheets ay s not hi ng abouthow s uch chi l dr en ar e tr eat ed for fami l ypl anni ng l aw purpos es i n C hi na. T he art i cl es L i n s ubm i t t ed conc erni ng for ced abor t i ons and s t er i l i zat i ons occurr ed i n Shandong Pr ovi nce, noti n Fuj i an pr ovi nce. T he B IA h e re e x a m in e d th e b a c k g ro u n d e v id e n c e su b m itt e d , an d d e ter m in e d , as it d id in M at t erof S- Y - G - , t hatt hi s evi dence di d nots how a mat er i al change i n fami l ypl anni ng po l i cyi n F uji an P rovi nce. Sub st anti al evidence sup po rt s the B IA ’s con cl usi on s. F in a lly , to th e e x ten t L in ’s m o tio n to re o p e n in c lu d e d a n a ltern a tiv e re q u e st to f ile a su c c e ss iv e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , w h ich th e B IA d id n o t ad d re ss , w e f in d th a t n o re m a n d is7

nece s s ary , as w e hel d i n L i u v. A t t or neyG ener al , 555 F. 3d 145 ( 3d C i r . 2009) t hat , aft er c o m p letio n o f

re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s, a n ya sy lu m a p p lica tio n th e a lien f iles m u st b e f

iled in conj unct i on w i t h a mot i on t o r eopen a nd m us tm eett he t i m e and numer i cal l i m i t at i ons on m o tio n s to re o p e n . Id . a t 1 5 2 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.