N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SONG LIN, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 12-72136 a nd 13-72357 Age n c y No. A099-968-183
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 13, 2017 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : FISHER , PAEZ, a n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Song Lin (“ Lin” ), a

native and c itiz e n of the Pe o ple ’ s R e p u blic of C hina (“ C hina ” ), pe titions for re vie w of his fina l orde r of re m ova l a s we ll a s the de nia l of his m otion to re ope n

proc e e dings dueto ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. W e 

# F IL ED JUL 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.gran t the pe tition for re vie wof the m otion to re ope n, No. 13-72357, a nd dismiss the p e tition for re v i e w of the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r, No. 12-72136. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n for a

buse of disc re tion, “ a lthough [denovo] re vie w
a pplie s to theB IA’ s de te rm ination of pure ly le ga l que stions.” C

ano-Me r ida v

. IN S , 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th C i r. 2002) (a lte ra tion in origina l). On April 8, 2013, Lin file d a n untim e ly m otion to re ope n c ha lle nging the pe rform a nc e of his a

ttorne y at his m e rits he aring a s we ll a s the pe rform anc e of his
se c o nd attorne y

who fa ile d to file a

tim e ly m otion to re ope n. As Lin’ s m otion to
re ope n wa s untim e ly , Lin ne e ds to de m onstra t e tha t he m e rits e quita

ble tolling. Se e , e .g. , Iturribarria v. IN

S , 321 F.3d 889, 898 (9th C ir. 2003). To m e rit e quita ble tolling on ac c ount of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l, Lin m

ust e sta blish: “ (a ) that he wa s pre ve nte d from

tim e l y filing his motion dueto prior c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive ne s s; (b) tha

t he de m onstra

te d due dilige nc e in disc ove ring c ounse l’ s fraud or e rror; and (c ) that he c om plie d with theproc e dura l re quire m e nts of Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988).” Singh v . Holde r , 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th C ir. 2011). In de ny ing Lin’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly , the B IA did not
a ddre s s the first two fa c tors, sta ting only that Lin ha d m e t the re quire m e nts of Matte r of Lozada . It the n

turne d to the m e rits of Lin’ s m otion to re ope n.

2“ Whe n c onside ring the m e rits of a m otion to re ope n pre m ise d on ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l, the B IA a sks whe the r c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt,
and whe the r the a l ie n suffe re d pre judic e .” Singh , 658 F.3d a t 885. He re , the B IA did not a ddre ss whe the r Lin’ s first a ttorne y at his m e rits he a

ring fa ile d to pe rform with suffic ie nt c om

pe te nc e , but re solve d the pre judic e prong a ga inst him
. W e disa gre e and c onc l ude Lin ha s de m onstra te d tha t he wa s pre

j udic e d by

his first
attorne y ’ s pe rform anc e in pre pa ring a nd pre se nting his c a s e be fore the im m igration
c ourt. To de m onstra

te pre judic e , a pe titione r ne e d only

show tha t “ the pe rform anc e of c ounse l wa s so ina d e quate tha t it may have a ffe c te d the outc om e of the proc e e dings.” Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 793–94 (9th C ir. 2005) (quoting Ortiz v . IN

S , 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th C ir. 1999)) (e m pha sis in origina

l). To de te rm ine whe the r Lin suffe re d pre judic e , we “ m

ust c o nside r the unde rly ing
m e rits of the c a s e to c om e to a te ntative c onc lusion a s to whe the r [Lin’ s] c la im , if prope rly pre se nte d, would bevia

ble .” Id. at 794 (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd
c ita tion omitte d ). As a

re sult, Lin ne e d

only de m onstra

te that he “ ha s plausible grounds for re lie f . . . not . . . tha t [h] e would win or lose on a ny c la im , only

tha t [his] c l a im s m e rit full c onside ra tion by the B IA.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd
c ita tion omitte d ) (e m

pha sis in origina

l). He re , Lin ha s de m onstra te d tha t he ha s a
3pla

u sible ground for re lie f, and the B IA a buse d its disc re t ion in c onc luding othe rwise
. Lin se e ks to re o pe n his proc e e ding so tha t he c an a pply for a sy l um

ba se d on his politic a l opinion re l ating to his re sista n c e to C hina ’ s c oe rc ive popula tion
m e a sure s. W e hav e pre viously he ld tha t individuals who a

re not pe rsona lly

subje c t to forc e d ste riliz at ion or a bortion, c an none the l e ss be gran te d a sy lum if the y have de m onstra

te d pa st pe rse c ution or a

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on
a c c ount of “ ‘ othe r re s ista

nc e ’ to a c oe rc ive popula

tion c ontrol progra

m .” N ai Yuan J iang v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1086, 1093–94 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Matte r of J -S- , 24 I. & N. De c . 520, 537–38 (U.S. Att’ y Ge n. 2008)); se e also Ming Xin He v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 792, 794 (9th C ir. 2014). He re , by wa y of the a dditiona l
m ate ria l s subm itte d in his motion to re ope n, Lin ha s de m onstra te d a pla usible
c la im for a sy lum

ba se d on “ othe r re sista

nc e .” In his m otion to re ope n, Lin subm itte d a host of m ate ria ls, inc luding a ne w de ta ile d de c la

ra t ion, in support of his c l a im . Lin’ s de c la ra tion provide d the following re le va

nt fa c ts: (1) he m arrie d his wife in a public c e re m ony

de spite
ne ithe r he nor his wifebe ing of le ga l a ge to do so; (2) he and his wifegave birth to
a da u ghte r e a rlie r tha n wa s pe rm itte d unde r C h ine se la w; (3) he and his wife de c ide d the y

wa nte d a nothe r c hild in viola

tion of C hina ’ s polic y , a

nd he
4a c c om

pa nie d his wife to a

priva te doc tor to ha

ve the gove rnm e nt-inse rte d intra ute rine de v ic e re m ove d; (4) Lin’ s wife c onta c t e d he r c o usin a nd a ske d he r to
re port to gove rnm e nt-m andate d gy ne logic a l e xam inations on her be ha lf to hidethe pre g na nc y ; (5) the c ousin re porte d to se ve ra l e xam inations a t the fam i ly ’ s re que st
and pre te nde d to be Lin’ s wife ; (6) Lin’ s wife gave birth to a se c o nd c hild in viola tion of C hina ’ s fam i l y

pla nning la ws; (7) Lin’ s wife wa s ta

k e n a way by gove rnm e nt offic ia ls a

nd forc ibly

ste riliz e d; (8) Lin fra

ntic a lly atte m

pte d to loc ate his wife a fte r she wa s ta

ke n by gove rnm e nt offic i a ls; (9) Lin a nd his wifewe re fine d for both the ir e a

rly m arria ge and the birth of both of the ir c hildre n; a nd (10) fam ily pla nning offic ia l s thre at e ne d to de stroy Lin’ s fa the r’ s hom e
—

whe re Lin
wa s living—

if the y fa ile d to pa

y the fine s. All of the fa c ts pre se n te d in Lin’ s de c la ra tion we re c orroborate d by Lin’ s wife ’ s de c la

ra tion, Lin’ s fat

he r’ s de c la

ra t ion, Lin’ s m o the r’ s de c la ra tion, and Lin’ s wife ’ s c ousin’ s de c la

ra t ion. 1 M ore o ve r, the trustworthine ss of Lin’ s na rra tive is bolste re d by the 2007 a

nd 2011 U.S. Depa

rtm e nt of Sta

te C ountry

R e p orts on Hum an R ights Pra c tic e s in C hina tha t we re subm itte d with Lin’ s m otion to re ope n. As a re sult, Lin ha s pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to pla usibly e sta b lish c onduc t

1 All of the se de c la

ra tions we re pre pa

re d in C hine se , signe d

by the de c la rants, a n d subm itte d with a c c om

pa ny ing ide ntific ation. 5c onstituting othe r re sista nc e to C hina ’ s c oe rc ive popula tion c o ntrol polic ie s. Se e J iang , 611 F.3d a

t 1094–95. To obta i n re ope ning, Lin m ust a lso de m o nstra

te tha t he ha s a pla u sible c la im of e ithe r pa st pe rse c ution or a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se eLing Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014). He re , Lin ha s e sta blishe d a pla u sible c la im

of pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his politic a l opinion for
re sista nc e to C hina ’ s c oe rc ive popula tion c ontrol polic ie s. 2 The B IA he ld othe rwise be c a

u se Lin did “n ot c la im

tha t he wa s e ve r de ta ine d or phy sic a lly ha rm e d.” B ut, a s our pre c e de nt m ake s c le ar, phy sic a l a buse and de te ntion a

re not the o nly c onduc t tha

t rise s to thele ve l of pe rse c ution. Se e , e .g. , K ov ac v . IN

S , 407 F.2d 102, 105–07 (9th C ir. 1969) (phy sic a l ha rm not re q u ire d for a

finding of pe rse c ution); Mashiri v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Pe rse c ution m ay

be e m otiona l or psy c hologic a l, a s we ll a s phy s ic a l.” ); Baballah
v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th C ir. 2004) (substa ntia l e c onom ic de priva

tion that c onstitute s a

thre at to lifeor fre e dom

m ay c onstitute

pe rse c ution). In sim

ply sta ting tha t Lin ha d not suffe re d phy sic a l a buse or de te ntion, theB IA fa ile d to

2 As we c onc lude tha

t Lin ha s m a de out a pla

usible c la im

of pa st pe rse c ution, wedo not a d dre s s whe the r Lin ha s a d ditiona lly e sta blishe d a pla usible c la im of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. 6c onside r a ll of the e vide nc e in light of the fore g oing pre c e de nt tha

t re c ogniz e s pe rse c ution e ve n in the a

bse nc e of de te ntion or phy sic a l ha rm . Lin’ s pla usible c la im

for pe rse c ution is ba se d

on: (1) his wife ’ s forc e d ste riliz ation; (2) them

ultiplefine s tha

t we re le vie d a ga inst him

for viola ting C hina ’ s polic ie s; 3 (3) Lin a nd his wife ’ s forc e d m ove ba c k to Fujia n Provinc e be c a use fam ily

pla nning offic ia ls ha d sta

rte d to c om e to the c om

pound in whic h the y live d to que stion Lin’ s boss; (4) thre ats by fam i ly pla nning offic ia l s tha

t the y would de stroy his fa

the r’ s house

—

the house in whic h Lin wa s living— i f the fine s
we re not pa id; a

nd (5) Lin’ s m o ve to Huna n Provinc e to “ te m

pora rily avoid the ha ra ssm e nt of fa

m ily pla nning.” As a

re sult, theB IA a

buse d its disc re tion in
c onc luding tha

t Lin fa ile d

to de m onstra

te a pla usible c la im

of pe rse c ution sim

ply be c a use he wa s not de t a ine d or phy sic a l ly ha rm e d. Se e Tade v osy an v . Holde r , 743 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (9th C i r. 2014) (sta t ing a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd). In de ny ing Lin’ s m o tion to re ope n, the B IA a buse d its disc re tion. Lin ha s
m a de out a

pla u s ible c l a im

for re lie f an d the re b y

a de quate ly

de m onstra

te d pre j udic e . Ac c ordingly , we grant the pe t ition for re vie w in No. 13-72357, a nd
re m and to theB IA for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this m e m o randum . In

3 In J iang , we note d tha

t fine s c an be “ pa

rt a nd pa rc e l of a broa de r se t of re prisa ls for [Lin’ s] re sista nc e to C hina ’ s c oe rc i ve popula tion c ontrol polic ie s.” 611 F.3d a

t 1096 n.2. 7light of our de c ision on the m otion to re ope n, we do not a ddre ss Lin’ s c ha lle nge s to the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r in No. 12-72136. If on rem and the B IA a g a in de nie s re o pe ning, we dire c t the B IA to a lso re issue its unde rly ing re m o va l orde r to pe rm it Lin to file

a ne w pe tition for re vie w ra i sing a ny c ha lle nge s to the re m ova l orde r a s we ll a s the orde r de ny ing re ope ning. The Pe tition for Re vie win No. 13-72357 is GR A N TED a nd REM ANDED. The Pe tition for Re vie win No. 12-72136 is DISM ISSED.

8