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 

### No. 08- 3702 XI U B I N Z HU; J I NG Z HAO L I ANG, P eti ti o n ers

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent P ET I TI ON FOR RE VI EW OF AN ORDER O F TH E B O A RD O F I M M I G RA TI O N A PPEA LS ( A gencyN os . A 75- 995- 757 and A 75- 995- 758) Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 11, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 29, 2010)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge X i u B i n Z hu and herhus band J i ng Z hao Li ang s eek r evi ew of a de ci s i on r ender ed b yth e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e n y in g th e ir m o tio n to re o p e n . W e w illFal un G ong i s a: 1 sp iritua l m o v e m e n t . . . [p o p u lar ] b e c au se o f its p u rp o rte dh e a lth b e n e f its

. . . . Si nce J anuary2002, the mer e bel i ef i n Fal un G ong, even w i thoutany publ i c mani fes t at i on of i t s t enet s , has been s uffi ci entgr ounds for p ra c tit io n e rs to re c e iv e p u n ish m e n ts ra n g in g f ro m lo ss o f

e m p lo ym e n t to im p riso n m e n t. Li n v. A t t ’

y G en. of

U. S. , 5 4 3 F . 3 d1 1 4 , 1 1 7 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). -2- d e n yth e p e titio n . I . Backg r ound Z hu and Li ang ( col l ect i vel y , “Pet i t i oner s ”) ar e ci t i zens of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of C hi na. T heyent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as undocument ed al i ens i n the mi d- 1990s and w er e char ged as r emovabl e i n February2000 forent er i ng w i thouti ns pect i on. T hey conce ded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed forw i thhol di ng of r emoval , as y l um , and r el i ef unde r the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”), cl aim ing p ast p erse cu ti o n an dfe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on bas ed on C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es , and bas ed on Pet i t i oner s ’ pr act i ce of Fal un G ong. 1 B efor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , Z hu cl ai m ed thats he fl ed C hi na af t er e sc ap in g f

ro m a h o sp ital w h e re a u th o rities f o rc ib lyab o rte dh e r th irdp re g n a n c ya n dto ld herthats he w oul d be s t er i l i zed. T he I Jfound hert es t i m onyt o be “a l l overthe pl ace ” and bear i ng onl ya vague r es embl ance t o herw r i tt en appl i cat i on, w i th w hi ch i tw as i ncons i s t enti n i m port antw ay s . T he I Jm ade an adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and d e n ie dP e titio n e rs ’ a p p lic a tio n . T h e B IA a f f irm e din D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 .-3-

In M a rc h 2 0 0 8

— m o re th a n f iv e y e a rs a f

terth e B IA h a dlas t co n sid e re dth e ir cas e— Pet i t i oner s fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen and fora s t ayof r emoval . T he B I A deni ed the m ot i on as unt i m el yand r ej ect ed Pet i t i oner s ’ ar gum entthatthei rt ar di nes s s houl d be excu sed bec ause of

chan ged cou ntrycon dit i on s. I n s upportof thei rm ot i on, Pet i t i oner s pr es ent ed w hattheycl ai m ed w as an off i ci al governm entnot i ce ( “N ot i ce” ) . T he N ot i ce, purport edl yi s s ued bythe V i l l age Com m i tt ee of Longt ai i n C hi na, demands thatPet i t i oner s r eturn t o C hi na t o fac e s t er i l i zat i on and pu nis hm ent for havi ng had three chil dren an d p ract i ci ng F al un G on g. P et i t i on ers al so su b m itt e da f

f id a v its f ro m Z h u a n dh e r m o th e r-in -la w — M e i Y in g C h e n , w h o liv e s in C h in a— d e sc rib in g th e ir b e lief th a t Z h u w illf

a c e ste riliza tio n a n dP e tit io n e rs to g e th e r w ill f a c e p u n ish m e n t if th e yre tu rn to C h in a . F in a lly , P e tit io n e rs s u b m itt e dth e S tate D e p a rtm e n t’ s M a y2 0 0 7 C o u n tryR e p o rt s o n C h in a . I n Sept ember2008, Pet i t i oner s fi l ed thi s pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re o p e n , to g e th e r w ith a m o tio n f o r a s ta yo f

re m o v a l. W e p re v io u s ly d e n ie dth e s ta yo f re m o v a l. II . A n a ly sis W e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the d ec isi o n o f th e B IA u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . In o rde r t o su cc ee din the iru n ti m elym o ti o n to reo p en , P eti ti o n ers m u st sho w that co u n try c o n d itio n s in C h in a h a v e c h a n g e ds in c e th e irc a s e w a s c lo s e din 2 0 0 2 . 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . A n appl i cat i on t o r eopen c an be de ni ed i f a pe t i t i onerdoes notm ake outW hi l e w e have hel d thatfai l ur e t o authent i cat e under8 C . F. R . § 287. 6 does not 2 w arr antpers e exc l us i on of document aryevi dence , and a pe t i t i oneri s perm i tt ed t o pr ove a u th e n tic ity in a n o th e r m a n n e r, L iu v . A sh c ro ft , 372 F. 3d 529, 533 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , the N o ti ce w as n o t auth en ti ca ted in an ym an n er. -4- a p ri m a f a c e c a s e f

o r r e lie f. Zheng v. A t t '

y G en. of

U. S. , 5 4 9 F . 3 d2 6 0 , 2 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a n ab u s e o f

d is c re tio n , G uo v. A sh c ro ft , 3 8 6 F .3 d5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ), an dw illre jec t th e B IA ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s o n ly if a “ re a s o n ab le a d

ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle dto c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry,” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). Pet i t i oner s ar gue thatthe N ot i ce and C hen’ s aff i davi tpr ove thatcondi t i ons have change d i n C hi na, atl eas ti n Pet i t i oner s ’ vi l l age. I n l i ghtof the fa ctthatthe N ot i ce w as notauthent i cat ed and thatthe I Jhad made an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on as t o Z hu w h ich th e B IA h a da f

f irm e d , the B IA w a s n o t u n re a so n ab le in e x p e c tin g Z h u to a u th e n tica te th e N o tice a n dd idn o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in re f u sin g to c o n sid e r it in its u n a u th e n t i c a t e df

o rm. See Zheng v . G onz ales , 5 0 0 F . 3 d1 4 3 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). C h en ’s 2 aff i davi tadds nothi ng butheruns upport ed opi ni on. T he B I A corr ect l yconcluded thatthe e v id e n c e d idn o t d e m o n stra te th a t co u n tryc o n d iti o n s o r c irc u m sta n c e s h a v e w o rse n e din C h ina w ith resp ec t t o P eti ti o n ers’ “c u rren t fam il yp lann ing claim . ” M o reo v er, th e B IA corr ect l yno t ed thatthe b i rth o f Z hu ’s thir d ch i l d in the U nit ed S t at es, and P et i t i on ers ’ a d o p tio n o f

F a lu n G o n g , b o th re f

lec t a c h a n g e in th e ir p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e s, n o t a c h a n g e in c o u n tryc o n d itio n s f o r p u rp o s e s o f

§ 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 3 )( ii) . See Li u v. A t t ’ y G en. of-5-

U. S. , 5 5 5 F .3 d1 4 5 , 1 5 0 -5 1 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 9 ). P e tit io n e rs a lso a rg u e th a t th e B IA im p ro p e rlym a d e f in d in g s o f

f a c t an dth a t it s houl d have r emanded the matt ert o the I Jforfac t - fi ndi ngs . T hi s ar gum enti s unavai l i ng becaus e w e have l ong r ecogni zed thata mot i on t o r eopen mayr equi r e the B I A t o m ake f in d in g s o f

f a c t. Se e Se v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F .3 d1 6 6 , 1 7 0 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e B IA d idn o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g P e tit io n e rs’ u n tim e lym o tio n to r eopen. I V . C oncl usi on We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.