# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 11 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Xiu Lin g C he n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 20 , 20 13
Fil ed : M ay

13 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Xiu Lin g Ch en pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r by th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (“ BIA”) de nyin g he r m ot io n to reo p e n h e r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al an d pr ot ect io n un de r Arti cl e III of t h e Co nv en ti on Aga in st

Tort ur e (“ CAT”). Bec au se sh e ha s fai le d to pr es en t pr ev io us ly un av ai la bl e, m at eri al

ev id en ce t o s up po rt r eo pe ni ng he r cas e, we de ny the pe ti ti on

.I. Ba ck gr ou nd

C h e n was bo rn in Ch an gl e (s om et im es sp el le d Ch an g Le) Ci ty in th e Fu ji a n

Pro vi nc e of Ch in a. Sh e arri ve d in th e Uni te d St at es on Ja nu ary 3, 20 01

, wit ho ut

ad m is si on or in sp ect io n. Sh e affi rm at iv el y a p p l i e d f or as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of

rem ov al

, an d pr ot ect io n un de r CAT o n J u l y 29

, 20 01

. Ch en in it ia ll y ap pl ie d fo r

as y lu m ba se d on a fo rced ab or ti on sh e al le ge d ha d oc cu rred in Ch in a, an d sh e an d he r
hu sb an d su bm it te d affi da vi ts to su pp or t th e cl ai m

. In 20 05

, sh e wit hd rew th at cl ai m

a nd am en de d he r ap pl ic at io n to refl ect th e ba si s fo r th e as y lu m cl ai m at is s u e h e r e :
si nc e sh e ha s ha d th ree so ns w h i l e i n t h e Uni te d St at es , sh e fear s th at sh e wil l be

su bjec t to in vo lu nt ary st eri li zat io n up on he r ret ur n to Ch in a an d th at he r fam il y wil l

be eco no m ic al ly pe rs ecu te d by vi rtu e of th e fin es im po se d on th os e who v i o la te

Ch in a’s on e-ch il d p ol ic y

.

Ch en ’s ap pl ic at io n was de ni ed by an im m ig rat io n jud ge (“ IJ ”) in 20 05

, an d he r

ap pe al was di sm is se d by th e BIA. On Ch en ’s pe ti ti on , th e Sev en th Ci rcu it rem an de d

to the BI A fo r ad di ti on al fact fin di ng to de te rm in e whe th er th e fin an ci al co ns eq ue nc es

to Ch en up on he r ret ur n to Ch in a wou ld co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on

. See Xiu Lin g Ch en

v. Gon zal es , 48 9 F.3 d 86 1, 86 3 (7 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ The Bo ard ne ed s to de ci de (a) wha t

fin an ci al ex act io ns no rm al ly are us ed in Fu jian

, an d (b ) h o w th es e co ns eq ue nc es
sh ou ld b e cl as si fie d un de r th e le ga l st an da rd th at se pa rat es in du cem en t an d

en co ur ag em en t (al lo wed ) fro m ‘force ’ (wh ic h ou r la w tre at s as pe rs ecu ti on ).”). The

BIA fu rth er rem an de d to th e IJ

, who fo un d Ch en ’s fear s ab ou t st eri li zat io n an d fin es

to be cr e d i b le bu t ga ve he r te st im on y di m in is he d weig ht du e to he r pa st fal se

st at em en ts in he r in it ia l as y lu m a p p l i cat io n. The IJ ul ti m at el y de ni ed Ch en ’s

ap pl ic at io n, fin di ng sh e ha d no t es ta bl is he d th at Fu jian Pro vi nc e st eri li zed wom en in

Ch en ’s s it ua ti on an d th at an y eco no m ic bu rd en s im po se d to en co u r a g e co m

pl ia nc e
wit h Ch in a’s po pu la ti on co nt ro l po li ci es di d no t am ou nt to pe rs ecu ti on

. On May 25

, 20 12 , th e BIA af

fir m ed th at de ci si on

.

-2

-Ch en bo th pe ti ti on ed fo r rev ie w of t h e B I A or de r in th e Sev en th Ci rcu it an d

ti m el y so ug ht to reo pe n t h e de ci si on , arg ui ng th at ne w an d pr ev io us ly un av ai la bl e

ev id en ce sh owe d th at co un try co nd it io ns in Ch in a ha d ch an ge d. The Sev en th Ci rcu it 1

de ni ed he r pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w. Xiu Lin g Ch en v. Hol de r, 50 0 F. App ’x 53 3 (7 th Ci r.

20 13 ). On Decem

be r 14

, 20 12

, th e BIA de ni ed Ch en ’s m ot io n to reo pe n, fin di ng th at

so m e of he r ev id en ce was pr ev io us ly av ai la bl e, so m e was in co m pl et e, an d no ne of th e
do cu m en ts fro m Ch in a was au th en ti cat ed —an d, m or eo ve r, sh e ha d fai le d to m ak e th e

req ui si te pr im a faci e cas e of el ig ib il it y fo r rel ie f. Ch en no w pe ti ti on s th e Eig ht h

Ci rcu it for rev ie w of t he BIA’s de ni al of h er m ot io n t o re op en

. 2

II . Dis cus si on

An in di vi du al in rem ov al pr oc eed in gs m ay or di na ril y fil e on e m ot io n to reo pe n

hi s or he r cas e, whi ch m ay le ad to a se co nd he ari ng

. 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(A). The

BIA m ay de ny a m ot io n to reo pe n if th e m o v a n t f a i l s to pr es en t ne w, pr ev io us ly

un av ai la bl e ev id en ce; if th e m ov an t do es no t es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of el ig ib il it y
fo r th e de si red rel ie f; or if th e BIA de te rm in es “ th at ev en if th es e req ui rem en ts were

sa ti sf ie d, th e m ov an t wou ld no t be en ti tl ed to th e di sc ret io na ry gr an t of rel ie f so ug ht .”

Hab ch y v. Go nz al es , 47 1 F .3d 85 8, 8 67 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

W e no te th at

, al th ou gh Ch en fram es he r arg um en t in te rm s of ch an ge d 1

co nd it io ns in Ch in a, “ [t]he bi rth of ch il dr en in th e Uni te d St a t e s i s a c h an ge of

pe rs on al ci rcu m st an ce, no t a ch an ge in co un try co nd it io ns .” Li Yun Lin v. Mu ka se y , 52 6 F .3d 11 64 , 11 65 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Afte r th e BIA ha s di sm is se d an ap pe al

, th e pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w of th at or de r is 2

fil ed wit h th e co ur t of ap pe al s f or th e ci rcu it in whi ch th e IJ co m pl et ed th e
pr oc eed in gs

. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(2 ). Ch en ’s 20 05 he ari ng was in Ch ic ag o, Ill in oi s,

an d he r 20 10 he ari ng aft er th e Sev en th Ci rcu it ’s rem an d was in Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri. The pa rti es joi nt ly m ov ed to tra ns fer ve nu e of th e pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w of th e May 25

, 20 12

, BIA or de r to th e Sev en th Ci rcu it

, bu t th ere was no su ch m ot io n fo r th e in st an t p et it io n.

-3

-Fo r th e BIA to gr an t a m ot io n to reo pe n, th e ne w ev id en ce m us t ha ve be en

“ ne it he r av ai la bl e no r di sc ov erab le at th e pr io r he ari ng ” an d m us t be “ m at eri al to th e

ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in g.” Qui nt ero s v. Hol de r, 70 7 F.3 d 10 06

, 10 09 (8 t h Ci r.

20 13 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. In ot he r wor ds , t he se ne w f act s “ m us t be su ch th at th ey

wo u l d l i k el y ch an ge th e res ul t in th e cas e, or th e he av y bu rd en req ui red to m eri t a

reo pe ni ng of pr oc eed in gs wil l no t ha ve be en m et .” St rat o v. Ash cro ft, 38 8 F.3 d 65 1,

65 5 (8 th Cir . 20 04 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . See al so 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 1)

.

Ju st as th e BIA m ay de ny Ch en ’s m ot io n to reo pe n if sh e di d no t pr es en t ne w,

m at er i a l e v i d e nc e, Ch en ’s m ot io n m ay al so be de ni ed if sh e di d no t m ak e a pr im a
faci e cas e of el ig ib il it y fo r th e rel ie f sh e se ek s. Sh e is el ig ib le fo r as y lu m if sh e can
de m on st rat e a “ well fo un de d fear th at

. . . sh e wil l be fo rced to un de rg o [s te ril iz at io n]

or [wil l be ] su bje c t t o p ers ecu ti on fo r [h er] fai lu re, refu sa l, or res is ta nc e” to do so

. 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(B)

. Eco no m ic bu rd en s m ay co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on , bu t t he 3

res tri ct io ns m

us t be “ se ve re en ou gh to th reat en an ap pl ic an t’s li fe or free do m .”

Alav ez-He rn an de z v. Hol de r, 71 4 F.3 d 10 63

, 10 67 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Ch en m ay pr ov e

an ob jecti ve ly well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on by pr od uc in g “ cred ib le

, di rect

,

an d sp eci fic ev id e n c e t h a t a reas on ab le pe rs on in [h er] po si ti on wou ld fear

pe rs ecu ti on if ret ur ne d.” Mak at en gk en g v. Gon zal es , 49 5 F.3 d 87 6, 8 8 1 ( 8 t h C ir.

2007 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Sh e m us t al so sh ow th at su bjec ti ve ly, sh e “ ge nu in el y fear s

pe rs ecu ti on .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

W e rev ie w th e BIA’s de ni al of a m ot i o n to reo pe n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.
Orti z-Pu en te s v. Hol de r, 66 2 F.3 d 48 1, 48 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ti ng Kuc an a v. Hol de r,

55 8 U.S. 23 3, 24 2 ( 2 0 1 0 ) )

. “ An ag en cy ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it m ak es a
de ci si on wit ho ut rat io na l ex pl an at io n, de pa rts fro m es ta bl is he d po li ci es , in vi di ou sl y

“If an al ie n fai ls to m eet th e as y lu m req ui rem en t of a well -fo un de d fear o f 3

pe rs ecu ti on , he or sh e ge ne ral ly can no t m eet th e hi gh er st an da rd ne e d ed to ob ta in
wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al or pr ot ect io n un de r th e Co n v e n t i o n Aga in st Tort ur e.” Nge ng we v. M uk as ey , 54 3 F .3d 10 29 , 10 33 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-4

-di sc riminat es ag ai ns t a pa rti cu la r race or gr ou p, fai ls to co ns id er al l fact or s pr es en te d

by th e al ie n, or di st or ts im po rta nt as pe ct s of th e cl ai m .” Git au v. Mu ka se y , 52 0 F.3 d

90 6, 9 08 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Here, we co nc lu de th e BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc re t i o n i n de nyin g Ch en ’s

m ot io n. Ch en ha s no t pr od uc ed do cu m en ts th at were pr ev io us ly un av ai la bl e fo r he r

20 10 m eri ts he ari ng an d th a t a r e “m a te ria l to th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in g.”
Qui nt ero s, 70 7 F.3 d at 10 09

. As be fo re, sh e ha s no t dem on st rat ed th e li ke ly im pa ct

of an y eco no m ic sa nc ti on s im po se d fo r he r vi ol at io ns of Ch in a’s on e-ch il d po li cy or

th e pr ob ab i li ty th at sh e wou ld be su bjec t to st eri li zat io n in he r pa rti cu la r pr ov in ce.

Alt ho ug h so m e of th e ne w do cu m en ts sp eak to he r pr ov in ce’s us e of st eri li zat io n on

wom en who ha ve vi ol at ed th e on e-ch il d po li cy , no ne di st in gu is he s be twee n wom en
who ha ve ha d ch il dr en in Ch in a an d th os e who ret ur n with ch il dr en bo rn ab ro ad

. It

is po ss ib le th at th e do cu m en ts de sc rib e bo th gr ou ps of wo men , bu t Ch en do es no t

arg ue fo r or pr ov id e ev id en ce to su pp or t th is in te rp ret at io n. Si nc e th e fact s pr es en te d

are th eref o r e no t “ li ke ly [to ] ch an ge th e res ul t in th e cas e,” Ch en ha s no t m et “ th e
he av y bu rd en req ui red to m eri t a reo pe ni ng of pr oc eed in gs .” St rat o, 38 8 F.3 d at 65 5.

In ad di ti on , Che n h as no t m ad e a pri m a faci e cas e fo r he r su bs ta nt iv e as y lu m
el ig ib il it y

. See Hab ch y , 47 1 F.3 d at 86 7 (fai lu re to “ es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e fo r

th e rel ie f so ug ht ” is a pe rm is si bl e reas on fo r BIA de ni al of a m ot io n to reo pe n)
(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h Ch en arg ue s th at th e BIA ap pl ie d a n e x c es si ve ly

st rin ge nt st an da rd

, th e BIA op in io n refl ect s co ns id erat io n of a pr im a faci e rat he r th an

an ab so lu te cas e of el ig ib il it y

. See Dec. 14

, 20 12 BIA de ci si on , at 4 (“ The ev id en ce
is in su ffi ci en t to de m on st rat e a re al is ti c ch an ce th at th e re sp on de nt ca n es ta bl is h he r
el ig ib il it y fo r rel ie f fro m rem ov al or pr ot ect io n un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e
du e to Ch in a’s fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy .” (em ph as is ad de d) ). As ou tl in ed ab ov e, sh e

ha s no t a d e q u a t el y sh own th at an y fin an ci al pe na lt ie s ba se d on Ch in a’s on e-ch il d

po li cy wou ld “ th reat en [h er] li fe or free do m ”—a m ou nt in g to eco no m ic pe rs ecu ti on ,

-5

-Alav ez-He rn an de z, 71 4 F.3 d at 10 67 —o r th at sh e ha s a well -fo un de d fea r of

st eri li zat io n i f sh e ret ur ne d t o h er p ro vi nc e wit h m or e th an on e ch il d b or n a br oa d.

Fi na ll y , Che n c on te nd s t he BIA ev al ua te d h er ex hi bi ts to o s tri ct ly by fin di ng

th at th e do cu m en ts fro m Ch in a were no t au th en ti cat ed pu rs ua nt to 8 C.F.R. § 12 87 .6,

whi ch pe rta in s to us in g ot he r co un tri es ’ of fic ia l reco rd s in im m ig rat io n pr oc eed in gs

. W e ack no wle d g e t h a t § 12 87 .6 m ay no t be th e ex cl us iv e m ean s to au th en ti cat e
do cu m en ts in th is co nt ex t. See, e.g ., Fei Yan Zhu v. Att ’y Gen

. of Uni te d St at es , 74 4

F.3 d 26 8, 27 4 (3 d Ci r. 20 14 ) (fi nd in g th at in ad di ti on to au th en ti cat io n p u r s u a n t t o

8 C.F.R. § 12 87 .6, th e “ si gn ifi can t in di ci a o f r e l ia bi li ty” ne ed ed fo r ev id en ce to be

co ns id ered su bs ta nt iv el y m ay be sh own in se ve ral ot he r way s) ; Ji Ch en g Ni v. Hol de r,

71 5 F.3 d 62 0, 62 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (al lo win g ot he r m et ho ds to au th en ti cat e do cu m en ts

“ is a se ns ib le ap pr oa ch

, si nc e it m ay no t be po ss ib le fo r an ap pl ic an t fil in g a m ot io n

to reo p e n to ob ta in fro m a fo rei gn go ve rn m en t va li d an d pr op er au th en ti cat io n of a
do cu m en t [th at ] pu rp or ts t o t hr eat en pe rs ecu ti on ” (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ); Yan Ro ng

Zha o v. Hol de r, 72 8 F.3 d 11 44

, 11 49 –5 0 (9 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ [A] pe ti ti on er’s fai lu re to

ob ta in go ve rn m en t cert ifi cat io n of a fo rei gn pu bl ic do cu m en t’s au th en ti ci ty is no t

n e c e s s ari ly a ba r to ad m is si on of th e do cu m en t.

. . . [A] do cu m en t can b e

au th en ti cat ed by an y ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e it em is wha t th e

pr op on en t cl ai m s it is .” (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ). Howev er, wit ho ut de ci di ng wha t wou ld

be req ui red to au th en ti cat e th e se ve ral types of do cu m en ts at is su e, we no te th e BIA

co r rect ly fo un d th at Ch en ’s do cu m en ts fro m Ch in a were no t “ su ffi ci en tl y

au th en ti cat ed in an

y man ne r ” an d were th eref or e “ no t co ns id ered ge nu in e, au th en ti c,

an d ob jecti ve ly rea so na bl e ev id en ce.” Dec. 14 , 2 01 2 BIA de c i s i on , a t 3 (em ph as is

ad de d)

. Eve n so , th e BIA di d co ns id er Ch en ’s “ do cu m en ts an d reg ul at io ns fro m ot he r [Ch in es e] vi ll ag es , to wn s a nd ci ti es ” in ev al ua ti ng Ch en ’s pr im a faci e el ig ib il it y , fin di ng Ch en ha d no t sh own ho w th es e do cu m en ts ap pl ie d to he r. In su m , th e reco rd

be fo re u s d oe s n ot pro vi de a ba si s fo r rev ers in g t he BIA.

-6

-II I. Co ncl us io n

B e c a u s e th e BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Ch en ’s m ot io n t o

reo pe n h er ca se , we den y he r pe ti ti on for rev ie w of t he BIA’s fi na l o rd er.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-