I M G - 211 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. 09- 3615

___________ J I AN NAN J I N, 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 e s p o n d e n t

____________________________________ 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 072- 499- 791) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

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

M ay19, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F ISH E R A N D G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 2, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J i an N an J i n pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on r ender ed bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i rm i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, 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.2

Pet i t i onerJ i an N an J i n i s a ci t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na and anat i ve of the Y ongj i a C ounty , Z hej i ang Pr ovi nce, w ho arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es i n 1993, w i thouta val i d entrydocument . H e w as char ged as “exc l udabl e” f r om the U ni t ed St at es pur s uantt o I N A § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . I n 1994, the I J deni ed J i n’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval aft era hea r i ng, and or der ed J i n excl uded and r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es . J i n di d notappea l . H e s t ay ed i n the country , m arr i ed a na t i ve and c iti z e n o f

C h in a in 2 0 0 0 h e re , an d h a d tw o A m e ric a n -b o rn c h ild re n : Je f f re yJin , b o rn in 2001, and J us t i n J i n, born i n 2007. I n 2008, J i n fi l ed a c ouns el ed mot i on t o r eopen w i th the I J bas ed on cha nged c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s re g a rd in g C h in a ’s c o e rc iv e f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licy . H e e x p re ss e d h is fea rthatupon hi s r eturn t o C hi na w i th hi s fami l y , the pr ovi nce w oul d s ubj ecthi s w i fe t o a for ced abort i on i f s he bec ame pr egnanti n C hi na, and w oul d r equi r e one of them t o be forci blyst eri l i zed. H e sai d thathe als o fea red that the g ov ernm ent w ou l d im po se ex o rbit an t fi n es. In su p p o rto f h is m o ti o n , Jin su b m itted h is ow n af fid av itan d sw o rn l e t t e r s f r o m h i s s i s t e r - i n - l a w a n d n e i g h b o r , a l e t t e rf r o m th e F a mi l yP l a n n i n g Of f i c e o f Ou B ei T ow n, i n Z heji ang P rovi nce, and ba ckg round m at eri al , i ncludi ng , am on g o ther things, as s or t ed art i cl es , offi ci al r eport s fr om C anada , the U ni t ed St at es , and othercountr i es , and d o c u m e n ts f

ro m th e C h in e s e g o v e rn m e n t. ( J .A . a t 1 0 3 -0 7 .) T h e IJ d e n ie d th e m o tio n . R e lyin g o n In re S -Y -G -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 2 4 7 , 2 5 1 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ), a n d In re J -W -S -, 2 4 I. & N . D ec. 185, 190- 91 ( B I A 2007) , the I J found thatJ i n fai l ed t o carryhi s “hea vybur den”3

of es t abl i s hi ng a mat er i al change i n countrycondi t i ons . ( J . A . at50. ) T he I J al s o found th a t, as a n a lien su b

jec t to a f

in a l re m o v a l o rd e r, Jin w a s b a rre d f ro m p u rsu in g a m o tio n to re o p e n b a s e d o n c h a n g e d p e rs o n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . (I d . a t 5 1 .) T h e B IA a f

f irm e d f o r d if f e re n t re a so n s. A ss u m in g w ith o u t d e c id in g th a t Jin sa tisf ied th e f irst tw o re q u ire m e n ts o f In re S -Y -G -, th e B o a rd c o n c lu d e d th a t h e f a iled to m ake apr i m a fa ci e s how i ng thathe “w oul d be puni s hed i n a w aythatw oul d gi ve r i s e t o a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on. ” 24 I . & N . D ec. at251. T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al a n d d e n i e d J i n ’ s mo t i o n t o r e ma n d . J i n f i l e d th i s t i me l yp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e 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 I NA § 2 4 2 [ 8 U. S . C. § 1252] . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctfors ubs t ant i al evi dence and the deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen f

orabus e of di s cr et i on. See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 170 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s ent i t l ed t o “br oad def er ence , ” s ee Ezea gw una v. A s h c r o f t , 3 2 5 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 9 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d w e w i l l u p h o l d i tu n l e s s i tw a s “ a rb i tr a ry, irrati o n al, o r co n tr aryto law . ” T ipu v . IN S , 2 0 F . 3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). To p r e v a i l o n h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n , J i n wa s r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r i ma f a c ie e lig ib ility f

o r r e lie f. S e e G u o v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). B eca us e he f

i l ed hi s m ot i on m or e than ni netyday s aft erthe fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on w as r ender ed i n hi s cas e, s ee 8 C. F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 1) , he w as r equi r ed t o pr es ent evi dence thati s “mat er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or4

pr es ent ed atthe form erhear i ng, ” w hi ch es t abl i s hes “cha nged countrycondi t i ons ar i s i ng in the co u n tryo f n ati o n ali ty . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 3 (b)(4 )(i ). O n m oti on s t o reope n b ased on chan ged cou ntrycon dit i on s, the B IA requi res fi rs t tha tthe pr of

fe r e d e vi de nc e be “ ge nu i ne , a uthe nt i c , a nd ob j e c t i ve l yr e a s on a bl e . ” I n r e SY - G - , 24 I . & N . D ec. at251. R eopeni ng m aybe w arr ant ed i f the evi dence pr oves that “( 1) a r el evantchange i n countrycondi t i ons occurr ed, ( 2) the appl i canthas vi ol at ed fami l ypl anni ng pol i cyas es t abl i s hed i n thatal i en’ s l ocal pr ovi nce, m uni ci pal i ty , orother r el evantar ea, and ( 3) the vi ol at i on w oul d be puni s hed i n a w aythatw oul d gi ve r i s e t o a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on. ” I d. R e ly in g o n Z h e n g v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 54 9 F .3 d 2 6 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), Jin a ss e rts that the B IA su m m aril yd en ied h is ap p ea l w ith o u t ade q u atelyrev iew ing the re co rd. In Z h en g , the B IA ca tego ri ca ll yrejected the p eti ti o n er’s ev iden ce o f c h an g ed co u n try ci r cumst ance s w i thoutanyi ndi cat i on thatthe B oar d had r evi ew ed i t . H er e, how ever , the B oar d thor oughl yr evi ew ed the ent i r e r ecor d, i ncl udi ng al l of J i n’ s backgr ound evi dence , hi s aff i davi t , the l ett er s of hi s s i s t er - i n- l aw , vi l l age ne i ghbor , and the Fami l yPl anni ng O f f ice in h is h o m e to w n , an d a ss o rte d a rticle s a n d g o v e rn m e n t re p o rts, in re a c h in g its deci s i on thatJ i n fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. See Li u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 149- 50 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . J i n offe r s nothi ng t o convi nce us thatthe B I A ’ s as s es s m entw as an abus e of di s cr et i on.5

J i n compl ai ns thatthe B oar d w r ongl ydi s count ed hi s aff i davi t , the l ett erfr om the Fam i l yPl anni ng O ffi ce, and the s w orn l ett er s of hi s s i s t er - i n- l aw and vi l l age ne i ghbor , as unauthent i cat ed, phot ocopi ed document s l acki ng s uffi ci entdet ai l . H e s ay s thatthe evi dence , pr oper l ycr edi t ed, demonstr at es a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on su f f icie n t to e sta b lish p rim a f a c ie e lig ib ili tyf

o r re lief. T u rn in g f

irst to th e F a m ily P lan n in g O f

f ice lette r, itsta tes th a t th e to w n sh ip “ stric tlyim p lem e n ts” th e f a m ily p lan n in g p o licyo f

Z h e jian g P ro v in c e a n d th a t “c iti z e n s w h o h a v e h a d tw o c h ild re n w ill b e targ eted fo r st eril izati o n , an d m u st un d erg o a steril izati o n o p era ti o n . . . . If y o u return to C h in a a n d se ttl e in C h in a , an d re g iste r y o u r U .S .-b o rn c h ild re n in y o u r h o u se h o ld in C hi na, y ou s houl d s tr i ct l ycompl yw i th the r el evantfami l ypl anni ng r egul at i ons as other l ocal r es i dent s . ” ( J . A . at138. ) T he B I A di s count ed the l ett er , purpor t i ng t o be an of fi ci al d o c u me n t , b e c a u s e i twa s a p h o t o c o p ywi th o u ta u th e n t i c a t i n g i n f o rma t i o n , s e e 8 C. F . R. § 287. 6. J i n does notdi s put e the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thatthe Fami l yPl anni ng O ffi ce l ett erl acke d i ndi ci a of a uthent i ci ty . I ns t ead, he ar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydecl i ni ng to g iv e w e ig h t to th e lette r so lelyb e c a u se it w a s u n a u th e n tica ted . W h ile J in ’s f a ilu re to authent i cat e the l ett erdoes notpers e r equi r e i t s excl us i on, an abs ence of evi dence conce rni ng authent i ci tym ayunderm i ne i t s evi dent i aryval ue. See C hen v. G onzal es , 434 F . 3d 21 2, 21 9-20 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). W e con cl ud e that the B IA ’s decis i on t o acco rd l ess w eigh t t o the F am il yP lann ing O ff ice lett er is reaso n ab le i n li g h t of this C o u rt ’sJ i n’ s r el i ance on L i v. A tt orneyG ener al , 488 F. 3d 1371 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( vaca t i ng 1 B I A ’ s deni al of r eopeni ng bas ed on pet i t i oner ’ s evi dence of r ece ntcampai gn of for ced ste riliza tio n in h e r h o m e v ill a g e in F u jian P ro v in c e , w h ich w a s c o n sis ten t w ith g o v e rn m e n t re p o rts) is m isp lac e d . H e re , Jin ’s lo c a lize d e v id e n c e is n o t co n sis ten t w ith a n yo f th e o th e r e v id e n c e h e su b m itt e d , inc lu d in g th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t C o u n tryR e p o rts on C hi na for2006 and 2007. 6 pr ece dent . A s the B I A not ed, the 2007 new s art i cl e thatJ i n s ubm i t t ed underm i ned the evi dent i aryval ue of the Fami l yPl anni ng O ffi ce l ett erbecaus e i ti ndi cat ed thatZ hej i ang P ro v in c e e m p lo y e d e c o n o m ic s a n c tio n s to f o rc e c o m p lian c e w ith C h in a ’s o n e -c h ild p o licy , an d d id n o t m e n tio n f o rc e d a b o rtio n o r ste riliza tio n a s a m e a n s o f e n f o rc e m e n t in thatpr ovi nce. M or eover , the C ountryR eport s for2006 and 2007 do notl i s tZ hej i ang Pr ovi nce a s one of the ei ghtpr obl em provi nces thatr eport edl yr equi r e ‘ t erm i nat i on of pr egnanc y ’ i f the pr egnanc yvi ol at es pr ovi nci al fami l ypl anni ng r egul at i ons . ( J . A . at279 and 261, r es pect i vel y . ) N ori s Z hej i ang Pr ovi nce i dent i fi ed as one of the pr ovi nces that em p loy“u n sp ec ifi ed rem ed ial m ea su res to d ea l w ith o u t- o f-p lan p reg n an cies.” (Id.) Th e r e i s n o o th e re v i d e n c e o n r e c o r d th a ts u p p o r t s J i n ’ s c l a i m. 1 J i n al s o ar gues thatthe B I A act ed arbi tr ar i l yi n di s cr edi t i ng phot ocopi es of the s w orn l ett er s of J i n’ s s i s t er - i n- l aw and nei ghboron appea l . H e as s ert s thathe s ubm i t t ed the or i gi nal s of thes e document s t o the D epartm entof H om el and Secur i tydur i ng the p e n d e n c yo f

th e m o tio n to re o p e n b e f o re th e IJ. H e a lso a rg u e s th a t th e B IA w ro n g ly di s count ed hi s per s onal aff i davi tbecaus e i tw as nots uffi ci ent l ycorr obor at ed byother re c o rd e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g to Jin , the B o a rd e ss e n tiallyre jec ted th e f

a c ts in h is a f

f id a v it7

a n d th e sw o rn lette rs o f h is s iste r-in -la w a n d n e ig h b o r w h e n it fo u n d th e m lac k in g in d e tail, co n tra ryto S h a rd a r v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 50 3 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (f a c ts p re se n ted in m o tio n s to re o p e n sh o u ld b e “ a c c e p ted a s tru e u n les s in h e re n tly u n b e liev a b le” ). W e d isa g re e . A ss u m in g th a t th e sw o rn lette rs w e re p ro p e rly authent i cat ed, w e ca nnots aythatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n acc or di ng them and J i n’ s aff i davi tl es s w ei ghtbecaus e theyl acke d adequa t e det ai l r egar di ng the ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch ea ch of the for ced abor t i ons ors t er i l i zat i ons m ent i oned had occurr ed. M or eover , as the B I A corr ect l ynot ed, al though J i n cl ai m s thathe w i l l be s ubj ectt o exorbi t antfi nes amount i ng t o as m uch as fourt i m es the l ocal aver age i ncome, he fa i l ed t o pr ovi de the nec es s arys uppor t i ng evi dence , s ee Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 15 7, 16 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ), and therebyfai l ed to dem on strat e “eco no m i c res tri ct i on s so s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.