## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2635 E N G AO, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 094-824- 782

A RG UE D M AR CH 6, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 12, 2013

Befo re M A NI ON, W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C i r cu it Judge. En Gao, a nati ve and ci ti zen o f Ch i na, peti ti ons f orr eview o fan o rdero fthe Board o f I m m i g r a t i o n Appe a l s de ny i ngh i s mo t i o n t o r e o pe n. Ga o or i gi nal l y a pp l i ed f oras yl um an d withhol ding of re m ov al, alle gin g t h at h e f ea re d p er se c u tio n be c au se h is w i fe had b een s ter i l i zed under China’ s “ f am i l y- pla nning” po l i c y . Aft e ra n i mm i gr ati o n j ud g e ( IJ ) de ni e d h i s a p-2 N o. 12

- 2635 pli cati on a nd the Board deni ed hi s a pp eal, Gao m ove d to r eo peno n the g r o und tha t he ha d i n the i nt er ve ni ng ti m e co nver ted to Chri sti ani ty and w oul d be per secute d if he w as se n t b ac k t o C h in a. T h e B oa rd d en ied th is m o ti o n, c o nc l udi ngtha t Gao ha d n ot es tabl i sh ed th e c h an ge d co u n tr y c on d itio n s n ec es sa ry to ex c u se h is unti m el y fi l i ng. W e co ncl ud e that the Boar d’s deci si on i s su ppo r te d b y s ubs ta nt i ale vi d ence a nd thus de ny th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

I Ga o, lik e m any o ther s we have see n, hai l s fro m Fuj i an Pro vin c e, w hi ch i s in so utheast er n China. H e e nter ed th e Uni te d S ta te s wi th o ut i ns pec ti o n i n 20 05 wi th the g o alo fe arni ngmo ne y t o s en d ho m e to hi s f ami l y, who r emai ne d i n China. S ho r tly a fte rhe a r r i ve d i n the U n ite d State s, Gao’ s wife (backi n China) ga ve bi rth t o th e c ou p le’s se c on d ch ild

— a daughter

— a nd was ste rili zed. Gao then so ught as yl um o n the gr ound that h i s wi fe ’ s s t e r i l i z a t i o n a mo u n t e d t o p e r s e c u t i o n o fh i m. H o l di ngtha t Gao ha d no t per so na l l y s uffer ed an y harm i n China , the IJ de ni ed hi s p eti ti o n fo ra sy l um a nd or dered hi m r em ove d to Ch i na. The B oar d dism i sse d hi s a pp eal, ci ting i ts rul e that s pouses ofper sons subj ec te d to forc ed st er iliza tio n n o lon ge r q u alify au t o m at ic a l l y f o ra s y l u m. One day after th e a pp l i cabl e 9 0- day deadl i ne, Gao m o ve d t o r eo penthe pr o ce eding s to am end hi s as y l um ap p lica tio n to ad d a cla im th at h e fear ed th at h e w ou ld be s ubj ecte d to re l i gi ous per secuti on ifhe was r e-N o. 12

- 2635 3 turned t o Ch i na. H e r eco unted that hi s a nxie ty ove r h is im p en d in g re m ov al h ad led h im to se ek so lac e in the Chri sti an Bibl e; a s a re sul t, he no w expecte d to f ac e ar r es t, de te nt i o n, a nd b eatingupo n h i s r etur n. The au th o r i ti es i n F uj i anPr o vinc e woul d kno w tha t he w as Ch ri sti an because he pla nned t o att end c h urch ser vi ces ther e. G ao ackno w l edged thathi s m oti on was unt i m ely, buthe mai nt aine d tha t hi s r el i g i o us c o nver si on, co up l ed w i th ev i dence thatper secuti on ofChri stia n s in C h in a is on th e ris e, es ta b lish ed ch an ge d co n d iti ons suffi ci ent t o ex c u se h i s l ate fi l i ng. In supp or t o f th i s m o ti o n, Ga o s ubmitted numer o us a r ti cl es a nd re p or ts rela tin g t o th e p er se c u tio n of C h ris tia n s in Ch i n a; he a l so furni shed an affi davi t fro m a M r. Chen ( supp ose d ly a re l ati ve) , wh o sta ted thathe ha d been detai ned and beate n f or att ending an undergr ound C hri sti an church in Fuj i an Pro vi nce. T he Boa rd de nied Ga o’s m o t ion to reopen f or f ail ure to de m o ns tr at e t h e c ha ng ed co unt r y c o ndi ti o ns r e qu i r e d t o e xc us e h i s o ne - da y - l a t e fi l i ng . S e e 8 U. S

. C. § 1 229a ( c) ( 7) ( C)( i ) , ( i i )

. I t co ncl ud ed th at Gao’ s deci si on to co n ve rtto C h ris tia n ity r e f l ec te d a c h an ge in h is per s o na lc i r c ums t a nc e s a nd thu s i n i t s e l fdi d n o tsho w ch an g ed ci r cumst an ce s i n China . In add i ti o n, the Board not ed that the a rt i cl es and reports thatGao had subm i tte d i n supp or t o fhi s m oti on s how ed that re pressi on o fC h ris tians i n China has bee n go i ng o n f or yea rs . Final l y, i t found that Gao had fa i led t o sh ow that an y g o ve r nm en ta l au th o r i ti es ev en k ne w o f hi s recen t co nv er si o n.4 N o. 12

- 2635 II Befo r e th i s co ur t, Gao ur g es th at Che n’ s ac co un t and a 20 10 r ep orto n r el i g i o us fr ee do m fr o m the De par tment ofS tat e s uffi ce, ta ken t oge ther, to d em onst ra te that countr y c ondit i ons i n China hav e chang ed su ffici entl y t o ex cus e hi s unt i m ely mot i o n t o reop en . Ev i den ce a t th e ti m e o fhi s he ar i ngs ho wed that th er e was s o m e per se cuti on o fChri sti ans e ven t h en, but, he a rgues, hi s new e v i de nc e s ho ws tha tc o nd i t i o ns h a v e wo r s e ne d. Th e Bo a r d r e a s o nab l y de c i de d, ho we v e r, tha t the e xc e ptio n to th e t im e lim it for a m ot ion to reo p en is av a i lab le o nl y i fthe pr o ffer ed ev i den ce o fc ha nge d c o ndi ti o ns i s m ate ri aland “was not availabl e a nd would not have b ee n d isc ov er ed or p re se n te d att h e p re vio u s p ro c ee d in g.” 8 U.S

. C . § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C)( i i ) ; se e Z hen g v . Ho lder, 70 1 F
. 3d 237, 24 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. Ev en though so m e o fthe re port s and art i cl es Gao pre sente d i n hi s m oti on t o re open su ppo r t hi s cl ai m tha t per se cut i o n o fChi ne se Chr i st i an s h as w or se n ed in re c en t y ea rs , m os t o f th es e m at er ials we r e p ub l i s he d we l lb e f o r e Ga o ’ s 2 0 1 0 h e a r i ng . Ind e e d, the in f o r m at i o n r el at i ngt o pe r se cut i o n o fChr i st i an s prese nted i n the Dep ar tm ent of State’ s r epor t doe s no t differs ign ifi cantl y fro m m any o fthe othe r ar ti cl es Gao s ub mi t t e d. Gao a l s o s ug g e s t s g e ne r a l l y tha t the Bo a r d f a i l ed to c on sid er al lo fhi s e vi dence w hen i t deni ed hi s m oti on t o r eo pen . Buthe m ak es thi s as se r ti o n wi th o ute l ab o r at i o n, ar gum ent, o r ci tat i on t o the r eco rd ; t h at i s no t e nough to p re ser ve the point f orr evi ew . S ee Wa ng v. G o nz a les, 44 5 F
. 3d 99 3, 9 99 ( 7th Ci r. 2 006). As f ara s we c ant el l, theN o. 12

- 2635 5 argu m en t is m eritl ess in a ny even t: th e B oard ap p ears to have add re sse d al lo fGao’ s e vi dence. I t e x p lained th at th e e vid en c e p re d a t ed h is h ea rin g, u n d er c u t h is cl ai m thatco nd i ti ons have cha n ged, and re l ate d to provi nc es o th ertha n F uj i an . T he Bo a r d a lso thou gh t tha t G ao’s rel igi ou s con vers i o n r e p r e s e n t e d o n l y a c h a n g e i n h i s p e r s o n a lc i r c u mst an ce s, b as ed o n h i s ac ti o ns i n the Uni te d S tate s, a nd that i t there f or e doe s no t q u alify hi m f orr el i effro m the fi l i ngde a dl i ne f o rmo t i o ns to re o pe n. S e e 8 U. S

. C. § 1 22 9a (c )(7) (C )(i); Lia ng v. Ho lder, 626 F. 3d 983, 988 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)

. Butwe th i nktha t i n thi s r es pec t th e B oa rd m isu n d e r st oo d G ao ’s a rg u m en t. A lth ou gh h is conve rs i on t o Ch ri sti ani ty ( the g enu in en ess o fwh i ch no o ne has chal l enged) occur re d in the U ni ted St ate s, Gao is ar gui ng tha t ci rcum sta nces f orChri sti ans i n C h i na ha ve a ppr ec i ab l y de teri ora te d o ve rthe y ea r s sinc e he ha s been h e r e . Th e ri gh t to choo se one ’s rel igi on is pa rt ofthe re l i gi ous fre edom that i s r eco gni zed i n the U ni ted St ate s. S ee C antw el l v. Co nnect icut, 31 0 U.S

. 29 6, 30 3 ( 1940 ) ( “Fr eedom o fco nsci ence and fr eedom to adhere to su chr el i g i o us o r g an i za ti o n o rf o r m o fwor sh i p a s th e i ndi vi dual m ay ch o o se ca nno t be r es tr i ct ed by l aw. ”)

. The sa m e is tru e a t t h e g lob al lev el. Se e, e.g., Inter nati onal Cov en an t o n Ci vi la nd Po l i ti ca l Ri g ht s, Art
. 1 8 ( pr o vi di ng that the r i ght t o fre edom o f“though t, co nsci ence and rel i gi on”
. . . “s hal li nclud e fre edom to have o r to ad op t a rel igi on or beliefof [the p erson ’s] ch oice”), http: // w w w . ohchr. or g/ EN /P ro f ess i onal I nter est /Pag es/ CC PR.a spx ( l astvi si ted J u ly 9, 20 13)

. The f act that Gao did notbecom e a Chri sti an unti lhe r eached the U ni ted6 N o. 12

- 2635 St ate s m eans that on the m er its, he c oul d not s how past p e r s e c u t i o n o n th a tg r o u n d , b u ti two u l d n o tp r ev en t hi m fro m sho w i ng change d condit i ons in C h ina since the t i m e he l eft with re spect to t h e tr eat m ent o f C h ris tia n s, n or w ou ld it p re ve n t h im from sh ow in g a w ellfou n d ed fea r of fu tu re p er se c u tio n . Th is d oe s n oth elp Gao, o fco urse , bec ause th e B oa rd r ej ecte d his eff or t t o satisfy his thresh old bu r d e n t o prov e ch an ged cou nt ry condi ti ons. T h e p et itio n for re vie w is D ENI ED .

7- 12- 13