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 8-6-2009 

# G a o 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 . 08-1316

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 authori 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 " G a o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 853. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/8531 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- 1316

___________ XUE NONG G AO, Pet i t i oner vs. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 78- 709- 575) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le N ico le K im

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t5, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges O pi ni on fi l ed : A ugus t06, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

X ue N ong G ao pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l deny h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.2 I . G ao, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n O ct ober 1 9 9 9 . He wa s p l a c e d i n t o r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d th e r e a f t e rs o u g h ta s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. I n D ece m ber 2001, the I J deni ed G ao’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um bas ed on herfi ndi ng thatG ao w as not c re d ib le a n d th a t h e h a d su b m itt e d f ra u d u len t d o c u m e n ts in su p p o rt o f h is c laim th a t h is w if e w a s f o rc e d to u n d e rg o a n a b o rtio n in C h in a . In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 , the B IA a g re e d w ith the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on and di s m i s s ed hi s appea l . I tdoes notappea rthatG ao s ought r evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on.

Foury ear s l at er , G ao fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen be for e the B I A , al l egi ng t hat he j oi ned the C hi na D emocr acyPar ty( “C D P”) and, as a mem berof the C D P, had part i ci pat ed i n pr ot es tr al l i es i n fr ontof the C hi nes e C ons ul at e i n N ew Y or k C i tyand the W h it e H o u se in W ash ing ton , D . C . , d istri b u ted p rop ag an d a m aterial s in the N ew Y o rk ar ea, expr es s ed hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on i n tw o art i cl es publ i s hed on the i nt ernet , and r ecrui t ed mem ber s forthe C D P. ( J . A . 159- 62. ) H e cl ai m ed thatthi s behavi or , coupl ed w i th the i ncreased em ph asi s on p rohi bit i ng po l i t i cal dis senti n C hina i n recent y ears , w a rra n ted th e re o p e n in g o f h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. (J .A . 1 7 2 -8 0 .) H e a lso a rg u e d th a t, pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 208. 4( a) ( 4) ( i ) ( B ) , he s houl d be perm i t t ed t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve asy lum ap p li ca ti o n b ase d o n the c h an g e in h is pe rson al circu m stan ce s. (J. A . 1 7 0 -71 . ) T he B I A hel d t hatG ao had notes t abl i s hed a c hange i n countrycondi t i ons i n C hi na, nor3

had he e s t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed i f r eturned t o C hi na due t o hi s part i ci pat i on i n t he C D P. ( J . A . 18- 19. ) T he B I A ther efor e conc l uded thatG ao had nots at i s fi ed the s t andar d foran unt i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen. ( J . A . 19. ) T he B I A fur ther c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c irc u m sta n c e s d e sc rib e d b yG a o d id n o t w a rra n t th e e x e rc ise o f its l i m i t ed di s cr et i on t o s ua s pont e r eopen hi s as y l um pr ocee di ngs , and thatbeca us e he w as s ubj ectt o a fi nal or derof r emoval , he w as notel i gi bl e t o s ubm i ta 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 . ( J . A . 18- 19. ) A ccor di ngl y , the BI A d e n i e d Ga o ’ s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n . Ga o t i me l yf i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth 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. § 1252. W e r evi ew the 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. See L iu v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 55 5 F .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , w e w ill r ever s e the B I A ’ s deci s i on onl yi f i ti s “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Sevoi an v . A s h c ro f

t, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). II I. G a o ’s m o tio n to re o p e n w a s c le a rl yu n tim e ly. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 2 ). A s the B I A hel d, hi s al l eged c hange i n per s onal ci r cumst ance s – hi s m ember s hi p i n and act i vi t i es w i th t he C D P – w i l l nots uffi ce t o ext end the t i m e i n w hi ch t o r eopen. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . A n exce pt i on t o thi s rul e exi s t s form ot i ons thatr el yon evi dence of “c hanged c i r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the countryof nat i onal i ty. . . i f s uch4

evi dence i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or p re se n ted a t th e p re v io u s p ro c e e d in g .” Id . W h ile G a o m a yh a v e a lleg e d a c h a n g e in c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in h is m o tio n to re o p e n , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n . I n I NS v . Ab u d u , 4 8 5 U. S . 9 4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , th e S u p r e me C our ts etfor th t hr ee ba s es on w hi ch the B I A m aydenya mot i on t o r eopen:

F i r s t , i tma yh o l d th a tth e mo v a n th a s n o te s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma fac i e ca s e forthe under l y i ng s ubs t ant i ve r el i ef s ought . . . . Second, the B I A m ayhol d thatthe movanthas not i ntr oduced pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, m at er i al evi dence , or , i n an a sy lu m a p p lica tio n c a se , tha t th e m o v a n t h a s n o t re a so n a b ly expl ai ned hi s fai l ur e t o appl yforas y l um i ni t i al l y . . . . T hi r d, in ca ses in w h ich th e u lt im ate g ran t of reli ef is discreti o n ary (as y l um , suspensi on of d epo rt at i on , and adjustm ent of st atus, butnotw i thhol di ng of deport at i on) , the B I A m ayl eap a head, as i tw ere, ov er the tw o thr eshold con cerns ( pri m a facie cas e a n d n e w e v id e n c e /re a so n a b le e x p lan a tio n ), an d sim p ly det erm i ne thateven i f theyw er e met , the movantw oul d not be ent i t l ed t o t he di s cr et i onarygr antof r el i ef. Id. at 10 4 -05 . A s w e h av e e x p lai n ed , “m o ti o n s to reo p en im m igrati o n p roc ee d ing s are ‘trad it ion all yd isfav o red . . . ’” a n d there fo re w e “ rev iew d ef ere n ti all ythe B o ard ’s deci s i on nott o r eopen [ pet i t i oner ’ s ] cas e. ” Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at171- 72.

I n th e i n s t a n tc a s e , th e BI A c o n c l u d e d th a tGa o f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma fac i e ca s e of e nt i t l ementt o t he under l y i ng r el i ef s ought : as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. T o thatend, the B I A hel d: “Thatthe re sp o n d e n t w ill b e p e rse c u ted if re tu rn e d to C h in a d u e to h is p a rticip a tio n in th e C D P is sp e c u lativ e in n a tu re a n d h e h a s f a iled to m e e t th e ‘h e a v yb u rd e n ’ o f sh o w in g th a t am ot i on t o r eopen i s w arr ant ed. T he r es pondenthas notpr ovi ded ade quat e new

i nform at i on, err or s of l aw orfac t , evi dence , orar gum ents uffi ci entt o gr antthe mot i on. ” ( J . A . 20. ) T he B I A ’ s concl us i on i s not“arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at174.

A ddi t i onal l y , the B I A corr ect l yhel d thatan as y l um appl i cantw ho i s s ubj ect t o a fi nal or derof r emoval m aynotfi l e a s ucce s s i ve as y l um appl i cat i on out s i de of the 90- dayr eopeni ng per i od bas ed s ol el yon a cha nge i n per s onal ci r cumst ance s . See Li u, 555 F .3 d a t 1 5 0 . F in a lly , u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s p re se n ted h e re , w e lac k ju risd ictio n to rev iew the B IA ’s de cisi o n n o t t o ex erc ise i ts discreti o n to su a sp o n te co n side r G ao ’s u n ti m elym o ti o n to reo p en . S ee C ruz v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 5 2 F . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 5 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Ba s e d o n th e f o r e g o i n g , 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.

5