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 1-7-2009 

# 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 . 07-3088

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 2067. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2067NOT 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- 3088
YI XI AN L I U, Pet i t i oner
v . AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent
O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on and O r derof the

B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 77- 644- 965) Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d V
. F erl i se Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober28, 2008 B E F O R E : S L O V ITE R and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es,

and I R E N A S, D i s t r i ctJ udge* ( Fi l ed: J anuary7, 2009)
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
*T he H onor abl e J os eph I r enas , Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.2

T hi s m at t ercomes on be for e thi s C our ton a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on and
or derent er ed J une 21, 2007, byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) br oughtby pet i t i onerY i X i an Li u. L i u i s a ci t i zen of t he Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n oraboutO ct ober1999, and s t ay ed al t hough
s he w as i nel i gi bl e t o do s o. A tt hatt i m e s he i nt ended t o s eek a s y l um t o avoi d w hats he cl ai m ed w as per s ecut i on i n C hi na bec aus e s he i s a C hr i s t i an. O n N ovember12, 1999, L i u w as or der ed t o appea rbefor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”)
. Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, t he I J i n a dec i s i on and or derdat ed M ay8, 2001, deni ed her appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. She appea l ed t o t he B I A w hi ch on M ar ch 11, 2003, di s m i s s ed her
a p p e a l. L iu d id n o t f

ile a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w o f

th e M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 d e c is io n a n d o rd e r. A ft ercompl et i on of thos e i ni t i al pr ocee di ngs L i u m arr i ed and ha d t w o chi l dr en i n t he U nit ed S t at es. O n J anuary19, 2007, L i u fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen a nd a r eques tt o fi l e a
su c c e ss iv e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w ith th e B IA . S h e e x p lain e d in h e r a p p lica tio n th a t:

[Li u] now s eeks t o r eopen he rpr ocee di ngs i n l i ghtof a c hange of co n d it ion s in C h ina a n d n ew fa cts th at are m aterial an d cru cial, b u t w ere pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e t o her
. T he mat er i al and cruci al change of condi t i ons i n C hi na pert ai ns t o t he ext entand s ever i t yof per s ecut i ve means e mp l o y e d t o e n f

o r c e t h e c o u n t r y ’ s P o p u l a t i o n a n d F a mi l yP l a n n i n g L a ws ( PFP L ) , as evi dence d byt he 2005 St at e D epart m entC ount r yR epor ton C hi na. A s a r es ul tof the cha nge of c ondi t i ons , t i m e l i m i t at i ons do notbar [Li u’ s ] m ot i on. A pp. at17.3

L i u fi l ed numer ous document s w i t h herm ot i on t o r eopen a nd r eques tt o fi l e a
s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on, s even i n t he ca t egoryof “Per s onal E vi dence ” and e l even in th e c a teg o ryo f

“ B a c k g ro u n d In f

o rm a tio n .” T h e b a c k g ro u n d in f o rm a tio n d o c u m e n ts
w ere as foll ow s: 1. Pol i cys t at ementfr om t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve O ffi ce of t he N at i onal Popul at i on and Fami l yPl anni ng C om m i t t ee; 2. C hangl e C i t yFam i l yPl anni ng Q & A H andbook; 3. T es t i m onyof M r . J ohn A i r d on C hi na’ s N ew Fam i l yPl anni ng L aw , dat ed Sept ember23, 2002; 4. T he cons ul ari nform at i on s heet , M ay29, 2003; 5 . 2 0 0 4 co u n tryrep o rt(i ssu ed 2 /28 /20 0 5 ); 6
. 2 0 0 5 co u n tryrep o rt(i ssu ed 3 /8/20 0 6 ); 7. Pol i cyl et t eron t he i s s ue of i dent i fi cat i on of nat i onal i t yfr om t he D epart m entof Publ i c Secur i t yof the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of C hi na; 8. C ongr es s i onal - - E xecut i ve C om m i s s i on on C hi na ( 2005 A n n u al R ep o rt ); 9. T es t i m onybyM r . H arr yW u befor e the C ongr es s on D ece m ber14, 2004; 1 0
. C h ina s h am ed b yfo rce d ab o rt ion s, T im e O n li n e (2 0 0 5 ); 1 1
. W h o C o n tr o ls th e F am il y , W ash ing ton p o st. co m (20 0 5 ). O n J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , th e B IA e n te re d a d e c is io n a n d o rd e r d e n y in g L iu ’s a p p lic a tio n . In it s d ec isi o n d en y ing the m o ti o n the B IA said that the m o ti o n w as u n ti m elyu n d er 84

C
. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) and thatL i u’ s havi ng chi l dr en born i n t hi s countr ydi d not
c o n stitu te a c h a n g e in c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f h e r n a tio n a lityth a t w o u ld
cr eat e an e xcept i on t o t he t i m e l i m i t at i ons on m ot i ons t o r eopen. I tt hen i ndi cat ed Li u had

“ n o t sh o w n th a t co u n tryc o n d iti o n s in C h in a h a v e c h a n g e d in a m a n n e r th a t m a ter ially im p a c t[ ] e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m .” A p p . at 2 . L iu th e n f iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew w ith th is C o u rt. T he B I A had j ur i s di ct i on under8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) , and 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 dec i s i on and or derof the B I A on an abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 562 ( 3d C i r . 2004) It is e n tir e ly p o s s ib le th a t th e B IA re a c h e d th e c o rr e c t r e s u lt in th is c a s e . U nfor tunat el y , how ever , i n r eac hi ng i t s r es ul tt he B I A di d nott ake not e of the fa ctt hat L i u h ad sub m i t t ed n um erous do cum ents i n sup po rtof h er appl i cat i on as i tdid not di scuss
o r ev en cit e a n yo f th e m aterial s tha t she su b m itted. W e re co g n ize, ho w ev er, th at th e B IA d id cite tw o o f it s ca ses, M att er o f J-W -S -, 2 4 I & N D ec . 1 8 5 (20 0 7 ), an d M att er o f C -C -, 23 I & N D ec. 899 ( 2006) , fort he poi ntt hatL i u had “nots how n t hatcountr ycondi t i ons i n C hi na have change d i n a mannert hatm at er i al l yi m pact s herel i gi bi l i t yforas y l um . ” A pp. at2. I n Z heng v. A t t or neyG ener al , N o. 07- 3122, F. 3d , 2008 W L 5006072 ( 3d C i r . N ov. 26, 2008) , w e found thatt he B I A ’ s deci s i on i n t hatcas e w as i nadequa t e on a
m oti on t o reope n b ecause an al i en m ov i ng for a reopen i ng w as ent i t l ed to hav e atl east5

so m e re c o g n iti o n b yth e B IA th a t itc o n sid e re d h is s u b m iss io n s. T h e B IA ’s d e c isio n d id
n o t m e e t th is s tan d a rd . T h o u g h w e m ig h t re g a rd th e B IA ’s c itatio n o f J-W -S - a n d C -C - to b e a d eq u ate to sa ti sfythe Z h en g stan d ard if th o se c ase s su b stan ti all yd ea ltw ith L iu’s
su b m iss io n s, th e ya d d re ss e d o n lya f e w o f th e se d o c u m e n ts a n d th u s a re in su f f icie n t to
s at i s fyZ heng. We r e i t e r a t e t h a twe d o n o ts u g g e s tt h a tt h e BI A r e a c h e d t h e wr o n g r e s u l ta s we onl yques t i on t he met hodol ogybyw hi ch i tr eac hed i t s r es ul t . O n r emand i tagai n m i ght concl ude thati ts houl d denyL i u’ s appl i cat i on and i f i tr eac hes t hatr es ul ti ts houl d do s o. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l gran t th e p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , v ac ate the B IA ’s
or derof J une 21, 2007, and r emand t hi s cas e t o t he B I A forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent
w ith th is o p in io n in w h ich it sh o u ld c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e th a t L iu p re se n ted a n d in its deci s i on i ndi cat e thati thas done s o.