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 4-10-2009 

# Li 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 . 07-4656

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 " L i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1554. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1554NOT 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. 07- 4656 F E N G Y IN G L I,

A ppel l ant 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 B I A N o. A 77- 234- 282 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Paul G rus s endor f) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober10, 2008 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, C H A G A R E S and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es. Fi l ed: A pr i l 10, 2009

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. Feng Y i ng L i , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n Sept ember1998. She appea r ed bef or e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) and conce ded thats he w as r emovabl e forent er i ng w i thouta val i d entrydocument . See2

I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t( “ I NA” ) § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) ] . L i appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r th e U n ited N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). S h e a lleg e d th a t f a m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s s oughtt o for ci bl ys t er i l i ze he rbeca us e s he att empt ed t o r emove an I U D . T he I J deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng L i ’ s al l egat i ons notcr edi bl e. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on i n Sept ember2002. A l though the B IA grant ed v olunt arydep arture, L i rem ai ned i n the U nit ed S t at es. I n 2005, L i s ubm i t t ed a “ M ot i on t o Fi l e Succe s s i ve A s y l um A ppl i cat i on, ” cl ai m i ng thatthe bi r th of hers econd c hi l d i n 2003 cons t i tut ed a c hanged c i r cumst ance w hi ch m at er i al l yaff

ect ed herel i gi bi l i tyforas y l um . T he B oar d deni ed the mot i on. L i fi l ed a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew . B ef o re b ri ef ing w as c o m p let e, w e g ran ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s unoppos ed mot i on t o r emand t o t he B I A . O uror derdi r ect ed the B I A t o cons i derthe r e l a t i o n s h i p b e twe e n I NA § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) ] a n d I NA § 2 4 0 (c )( 7 )( C )( ii) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )( 7 )( C )( ii) ]. ( L i v . A tt’ yG e n ., C .A . N o . 0 5 -4 1 5 0 ). A l i ens w ho appl yforas y l um m us tdo s o w i thi n one y earaft erarr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es . See I N A § 208( a) ( 2) ( B ) [8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) ] . I n addi t i on, an al i en w ho has fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on thathas been de ni ed maynotappl yagai n foras y l um . See IN A § 2 0 8 (a )(2 )(C ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )(C )]. P u rsu a n t to IN A § 2 0 8 (a )(2 )(D ) a n d its i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons , how ever , an al i en mayfi l e a s ucce s s i ve orunt i m el yas y l um appl i cat i on bas ed on, i nt eral i a, “cha nged ci r cumst ance s w hi ch mat er i al l yaff ectthe3

a p p lica n t’s e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m .” T h e ter m “ c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s” a rg u a b ly encompas s es change d per s onal ci r cumst ance s , s uch as the bi r th of chi l dr en i n the U ni t ed S tate s. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .4 (a )(4 )(i)(A )-(B ). T h e o th e r sta tu te to w h ich w e re f e rre d in ourr emand or der , I N A § 240( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( i i ) , excus es the 90- daydeadl i ne forfi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen w her e the al i en s eeks t o appl yforas y l um bas ed on “c hanged c ountrycondi t i ons ar i s i ng i n the countr yof nat i onal i tyorthe countryt o w hi ch r emoval has been or der ed. ” I N A § 240( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( i i ) ; s ee a l s o 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) ( pr ovi di ng thatthe l i m i ton fi l i ng “onl yone mot i on t o r eopen, ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) , does notappl yw her e the al i en d em on strat es “chan ged ci rcum st ances ari si ng i n the cou ntryof n at i on al i ty ”). T hu s, u n d e r th is s tatu to rya n d re g u lato rysc h e m e , ch a n g e d p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e s m a yp e rm it the fi l i ng of a s ucce s s i ve orunt i m el yas y l um appl i cat i on underI N A § 208( a) ( 2) , but c a n n o t e x c u s e th e tim e a n d n u m e ri c a l lim ita tio n s a p p lic a b le to m o tio n s to re o p e n . O n r emand, the B I A concl uded that“s ect i on 208( a) ( 2) ( D ) does notpr ovi de an i ndepende ntbas i s forfi l i ng a l at e mot i on t o r eopen t o appl yforas y l um w i thoutthe s how i ng of cha nged countr ycondi t i ons r equi r ed bys ect i on 240( c) ( 7) ( C ) of the A ct . ” R ely ing o n it s d ec isi o n in In re C -W -L -, 2 4 I. & N . D ec . 3 4 6 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ), the B IA re a so n e d th a t IN A § 2 4 0 (c )(7 )(C ) w o u ld b e re n d e re d su p e rf lu o u s – in v io latio n o f

th e ru le thateverycl aus e of a s t atut e s houl d be gi ven ef fec t– i f al i ens s ubj ectt o fi nal or der s of r emoval coul d fi l e s ucce s s i ve orunt i m el yas y l um appl i cat i ons bas ed s ol el yon change dT he B I A concl uded thatL i ’ s m ot i on w as unt i m el yand r ej ect ed heratt empt s t o s at i s fy 1 the exc ept i ons t o t he t i m e bar . I n part i cul ar , the B oar d hel d thatthe bi r th of Li ’ s s econd chi l d cons t i tut ed a c hange i n per s onal ci r cumst ance s and thatthe evi dence s he s ubm i t t ed 4 per s onal ci r cumst ance s . C ons equent l y , the B I A agai n deni ed Li ’ s m ot i on. L i fi l ed a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . 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 deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on, L u v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , and w i l l notdi s turb the dec i s i on unl es s i tw as arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal orcontr aryt o l aw . See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). L i ar gues thatI N A § 208( a) ( 2) ( D ) pr ovi des al i ens s ubj ectt o a fi nal or derof r emoval w i th an i ndepende ntbas i s forfi l i ng an unt i m el yas y l um appl i cat i on bas ed on chan ged personal ci rcum st ances, w i tho ut m eet i ng the “ch ang ed co un trycon dit i on s” r e q u i r e m e n tf

o rr e o p e n i n g i m m i g r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e rI N A § 2 4 0 ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C ) ( i i ) . We r ece nt l yr ej ect ed a s i m i l arar gum enti n L i u v. A t t orneyG ener al , – F. 3d –, 2009 W L 2 5 0 1 0 2 , a t* 4 - 5 ( 3 d Ci r . F e b . 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) , h o l d i n g th a tI NA § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) “ a l l o ws su cc essiv e a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n s o n lyw ith in the 9 0 -da yreo p en ing p eriod fo r ord ers deny i ng as y l um unl es s the al i en ca n s how change d countrycondi t i ons on the r equi r ed acc om pany i ng m ot i on t o r eopen. ” Forthe r eas ons s t at ed i n L i u, w e conc l ude thatthe B I A pr oper l yr equi r ed Li t o compl yw i th the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen. 1w as i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh chan ged cou ntrycon dit i on s. L i do es not contes tthese f in d in g s o n a p p e a l. S h e d o e s, h o w e v e r, ch a llen g e th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t trea ty obl i gat i ons underthe C A T , the U ni t ed N at i ons Pr ot ocol R el at i ng t o the St atus of Re f u g e e s , a n d th e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Co v e n a n to n Ci v i l a n d P o l i t i c a l Ri g h t s s u p e r s e d e I NA sta tu to ryre q u ire m e n ts f o r re o p e n in g a n d f

ili n g su c c e ss iv e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n s. T h is con t enti on l acks m eri t . S ee Ji n, 53 8 F . 3d at15 9-60 (r ej ect i ng si m i l ar ar gu m ent because the tr eat i es ar e nots el f- exec ut i ng and do notconfe rr i ght s bey ond thos e gr ant ed bythe i m pl ement i ng l egi s l at i on, beca us e ther e i s a pr es um pt i on agai ns ti nferr i ng i ndi vi dual ri g h ts from interna ti o n al trea ti es, an d b ec au se th ere w as n o ev iden ce that the B IA ’s h o lding co n fli cts w ith p ri n ciples o f c u stom aryinterna ti o n al l aw ). 5 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.