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 7-20-2009 

# Zh ang v . Att 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 . 08-2659

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 " Zh an g v . Att Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 982. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/982I M G - 093 NOT 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. 08- 2659 H U I L A N Z H A N G , a /k /a L u c yT i T in g W u , a/k/ a H ui L an Zheng,

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 the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 77- 957- 851) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le E sm era lda C ab rera Subm i tt 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: A M B R O , FI SH E R A N D J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y20, 2009)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i oner , H ui L an Zhang, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of2

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng herm ot i on t o r eopen he ri m m i gr at i on p roc ee d ing s. F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l gran t her p eti ti o n , v ac ate the B IA ’s decis i on , and rem and t he m at t er t o the B IA for further proceedings. Z hang i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na. She arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es bear i ng a pas s por ti n s om eone e l s e’ s name i n J une 2001 and i m m edi at el yappl i ed foras y l um bas ed on herpol i t i cal opi ni ons and for ced mar r i age t o t he may or ’ s s on. I n l i ghtof the di s cr epanc i es i n hert es t i m ony , t he l ack of anys ubs t ant i ve expl anat i on forthem, and the l ack of s uppor t i ng document at i on forhercl ai m s , the I J concl uded thatZ hang had f ai l ed t o m eetherbur den of pr oof and de ni ed r el i ef. O n Sept ember9, 2003, the B I A aff i r m ed a n d d ism iss e d h e r a p p e a l. O n February11, 2008, m or e than foury ear s l at er , Z hang fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen heri m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs , cl ai m i ng thatcountr ycondi t i ons had cha nged s i nce the deni al of herappl i cat i on. I n herm ot i on, Z hang expl ai ned thats i nce 2003 s he had mar r i ed and gi ven bi r t h t o t w o chi l dr en, one i n 2003 and the otheri n 2007. She cl ai m ed that o ff ici als i n h er h o m etow n h ad rec en tl yb eg u n step p ing u p en fo rce m en t of the c o u n try ’s f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic ya n d h a d in d ic a te d th a t s h e w o u ld b e s te ri liz e d if re m o v e d to C h in a . I n s uppor tof herm ot i on, s he s ubm i t t ed partof the 2006 St at e D epart m entr epor ton hum an r i ght s pr act i ces i n C hi na; hernew appl i cat i on foras y l um ; heraff i davi t s ; her m arr i age c er t i fi cat e; herbi r t h cert i fi cat e; the bi r t h cert i fi cat es of herhus band and chi l dr en; hers on’ s C hi nes e tr avel document ; a s t at ementfr om herm otheri n C hi na dat ed3

D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , w h ich a v e rs th a t sh e h e a rd th a t a lo c a l v ill a g e r a n d a w o m a n in anothervi l l age w er e s ubj ect ed t o s t er i l i zat i on; tw o unauthent i cat ed s t er i l i zat i on c e rtific a tes ; an d a n o tice f ro m h e r v ill a g e in d ica tin g th a t sh e w ill b e re q u ire d to c o m p ly w i t h C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es upon herr eturn t o C hi na. I n addi t i on, s he s uppl i ed near l yt w entydocument s , r epor t s and s t at ement s fr om governm entagenc i es i n t he U ni t ed St at es and C hi na w hi ch purpor t edl yaddr es s the curr ents t at e of the enf or cementof C h i n a ’ s f

a m i l y p l a n n i n g p o l i c y. O n M ay15, 2008, t he B I A deni ed Zhang’ s m ot i on t o r eopen, fi ndi ng thati tw as unt i m el yand thats he had notdemonstr at ed thatcountr ycondi t i ons i n C hi na had c hanged so as to m ee t th e e x ce p ti o n to the 9 0 -da yfil ing p eriod . S ee 8 C . F . R . § § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2), 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . T he B I A not ed Zhang’ s cl ai m s that“per s ecut i ve means of enf or ci ng t he countr y ’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy , s uch as for ced a bor t i ons and s t er i l i zat i ons , have be en on t h e r i s e , ” a n d t h a tf

a mi l yp l a n n i n g o f

f i c i a l s a r e a wa r e th a ts h e i s th e mo t h e ro f two chi l dr en. T he B I A r eci t ed al l of the document s s ubm i t t ed byZ hang i n s uppor tof her cl ai m , not ed thats om e of them w er e i ncompl et e, unauthent i cat ed orcont ai ned i n s u f f i c i e n ti n f o r m a t i o n , a n d f

a i l e d t o c o m m e n to n th e r e s t , e x c e p tt o s a y th a tm a n y – t hough notal l – of them had al r eadybeen c ons i der ed bythe B I A i n M at t erof S- Y - G - , 24 I . & N . D ec. 247 ( B I A 2007) , M at t erof J - H - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 196 ( B I A 2007) ; M att er of J - W - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 185 ( B I A 2007) , and M att erof C - C - , 23 I . & N . D ec. 899 (B IA 2 0 0 6 ), an d h a d n o t b e e n f o u n d to su p p o rt th e f

in d in g o f a m a ter ial c h a n g e inA s Z han g d oes no trai se the p ropri et yof thi s deci si on on app eal , w e need no tadd res s 1 i tanyfur t her . W e di d, how ever , expl ai n i n L i u v. A t t orneyG ener al , 555 F. 3d 145 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), th a t “8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )(D ) a llo w s s u c c e ss iv e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n s o n ly w i t hi n t he 90- dayr eopeni ng per i od foror der s deny i ng as y l um unl es s the al i en ca n s how change d countr ycondi t i ons on t he r equi r ed ac company i ng m ot i on t o r eopen. ” I d. at150.

4 c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s. F in a lly , the B IA re jec ted Z h a n g ’s a rg u m e n t th a t sh e w a s p e rm itt e d to fi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on bas ed on cha nged per s onal ci r cumst ance s under S ec ti o n 2 0 8 (a)(2)(D ) of the Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct, 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(D ), i r r es pect i ve of w hethers he coul d s how change d countr ycondi t i ons . Z hang t i m el yfi l ed a 1 p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p u r s u a n tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. L i u v. A t t orney G ener al , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e w i l l r ever s e the B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif

it i s “ a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, or c o n tra ryto law .” S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 290 F. 3d 166, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n addi t i on, w e w i l l uphol d t he B I A ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons s o l ong as “theyar e ‘ s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ’ ” See Li u, 555 F. 3d at148 ( quot i ng I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ) . A s w e have expl ai ned, underthi s s t andar d t he B IA ’s find ing s “m u st be u p h eld u n less the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary c o n c lu s io n , b u t c o m p e ls it.” A b d ille v . A s h c ro f t, 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). M ot i ons t o r eopen ge ner al l ym us tbe fi l ed w i t h t he B I A “no l at erthan 90 day s aft erthe5

d a te o n w h ic h th e f

in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n w a s re n d e re d .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 2 ). A n exce pt i on t o t he 90- dayl i m i texi s t s , how ever , form ot i ons thatr el yon evi dence of

“ c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity. . . if s u c h e v id e n c e is m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe p re v io u s p ro c e e d in g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii); se e a lso Z h e n g v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 5 4 9 F .3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e r ece nt l ycons i der ed the B I A ’ s deni al of m ot i ons t o r eopen ba s ed on cha nged countr ycondi t i ons i n Z heng, i n w hi ch w e vac at ed the deni al of tw o m ot i ons t o r eopen bas ed on the B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o compre hens i vel ydi s cus s the evi dent i aryr ecor d. See 549 F. 3d at268- 69. A s w e expl ai ned, i n r evi ew i ng evi dence of cha nged countr ycondi t i ons s ubm i t t ed bya pet i t i oner , “‘ [t ] he B I A s houl d demonstr at e thati thas cons i der ed s uch ev iden ce , ev en if o n lyto d ism iss i t. In so d o ing , the B IA sh o u ld p rov ide u s w ith m o re t han cur s or y , s um m aryorconcl us or ys t at ement s , s o t hatw e ar e abl e t o di s cern i t s r eas ons fordecl i ni ng t o aff

or d r el i ef t o a pet i t i oner . ’ ” I d. at268 ( quot i ng W ang v. B I A , 437 F. 3d 270, 275 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ) . W e emphas i zed that“‘ [i m m i gr at i on j udges ] and the B I A have a dut yt o expl i ci t l ycons i deranycountr ycondi t i ons evi dence s ubm i t t ed byan appl i cantt hat m at er i al l ybear s on hi s cl ai m , ’ and ‘ [a] s i m i l ar , i f notgr eat er , dutyar i s es i n t he cont extof m oti on s t o reope n b ased on chan ged cou ntrycon dit i on s. ’” I d. (quoti ng G uo v. G on zal es, 463 F. 3d 109, 115 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ) . B eca us e the B I A i n Z heng fa i l ed t o engage i n a compre hens i ve di s cus s i on of the evi dence befor e i t , w e w er e unabl e t o di s cern w hether6

t h e BI A h a d a c tu a l l yr e v i e we d a l l o f Z h e n g ’ s d o c u me n t a t i o n . S e e i d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we rem an d ed the m att er to the B IA in o rde r t o all o w itthe o p p o rtu n ityto en g ag e in a m o re compre hens i ve r evi ew of Zheng’ s evi dence of cha nged countr ycondi t i ons i n C hi na. See i d. at272. I n s o doi ng, w e expl i ci t l ys t at ed thatourdeci s i on w as bas ed on pr ocedur al gr ounds and s houl d notbe cons t rued as “i m pl y [i ng] thatthe B I A r eac hed an i ncorr ect r es ul tpr edi cat ed on the r ecor ds befor e i ti n ei t hercas e. ” See i d. I n t he i ns t antcas e, t he B I A di d l i t t l e more than r eci t e a l i s tof document s w hi ch w er e s ubm i t t ed bypet i t i onerand not e thats om e – butnotal l – of them had been cons i der ed byt he B I A i n pr evi ous deci s i ons s uch as M at t erof S- Y - G - , 24 I . & N . D ec. 247 ( B I A 2007) , M at t erof J - H - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 196 ( B I A 2007) ; M att erof J - W - S- , 24 I. & N . D e c . 1 8 5 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ), a n d M a tte r o f C -C -, 2 3 I. & N . D e c . 8 9 9 (B IA 2 0 0 6 ). A m ong t he document s s ubm i t t ed byZ hang w hi ch w er e notbefor e the B I A i n i t s pr evi ous deci s i ons w er e the 2006 St at e D epart m entC ount r yR epor t , w hi ch ac know l edges the o c c u r r e n c e o f

f o r c e d s t e r i l i z a t i o n i n F u j i a n P r o v i n c e ( J . A. 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 ) , a n d n u me r o u s n e ws ar t i cl es fr om bot h C hi nes e and w es t ern m edi a publ i s hed dur i ng the s pr i ng of 2007, al ong w i t h r ece ntgovernm entpr opaganda , w hi ch i nt i m at e thatfor ced s t er i l i zat i on campai gns ar e bec om i ng m or e comm on as var i ous pr ovi nces now s t r i ct l yenfor ce the bi r t h contr ol l i m i t s . ( J . A . 156, 170, 324, 331- 32, 336, 339- 40, 341- 42, 343, 348, 360, 362, 371- 72, 3 8 5 -8 6 .) Z h a n g a lso re f e rs to a n A p ril 2 0 0 7 re p o rt o f th e C o n su late G e n e ra l in G u an g zh o u w h ich c o n clud ed that C h ines e n ati o n als w ith A m erican -bo rn c h il d ren are7

s ubj ectt o bi r t h contr ol l aw s i n t hei rr egi on ( J . A . 113) , and a M ar ch 2006 pol i cys t at ement fr om t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve O ffi ce of C hi na’ s N at i onal Popul at i on and Fami l yPl anni ng C om m i t t ee of

C hi na ( “N PFP C ”) r es pondi ng t o t he Fuj i an Pr ovi nce Popul at i on and F a m ilyP lan n in g C o m m itt e e ’s in q u iryo n th e leg a l ap p lica b ili tyo f f a m ilyp lan n in g law s to C h in e se c iti z e n s re sid in g in o th e r c o u n tries . In th e sta tem e n t, th e N P F P C e x p licitly confi r m s t hat“as l ong as a coupl e ar e both ci t i zens of C hi na, theyar e s ubj ectt o t he F am il yP lann ing L aw s o f C h ina, reg ard less o f w h ere their ch il d ren are b o rn.” (J. A . 1 1 7 . ) T he B I A ’ s deci s i on fai l s t o pr ovi de us w i t h anyi nform at i on r egar di ng i t s as s es s m entof t hes e document s . A ccor di ngl y , as i n Z heng, w e mustr emand t o t he B I A t o ens ur e a t hor ough cons i der at i on of pet i t i oner ’ s evi dence of cha nged countr ycondi t i ons . See 549 F . 3 d at 26 8 ; see a lso Y an er L i v. A tt o rne yG en . , 4 8 8 F . 3 d 1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 5 -76 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); Y a n g v . G o n z a le s , 4 2 7 F .3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 2 2 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B ase d o n the f

o reg o ing , 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 deci s i on deny i ng t he mot i on t o r eopen, and r emand t he mat t erforfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.