FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 24 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 79 -3 43 -4 36 QUANREN LIN, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 15 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Qua nr enLinpe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ de ni al of h is sec on d m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs ba se d o n c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s i n C hi na . Lin c on te nd s t ha t the BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n wh en

itde ni edhi s m ot io n t o re op en . Lin arg ue s t ha t h e d em on st rat edch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns inCh in a wit h re sp ectto Ch in a’s on e-ch il d fa m il y pl an ni ng po li cy . I. Lin , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof C hi na , il le ga ll y en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i n 19 96 . In 2 00 0 h e m arri edSwi In dr awat i, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof I nd on es ia , who ha d a ls o i ll eg al ly ent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s. Th aty ear t he y ha d t he ir f

irs t ch il d. Abo utfou r m on th s l at er, o n Ap ril 23 , 20 01 , Ind rawat i fi le d a n app li cat io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andpro te ct io n u nd er the Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re, an d Li n jo in edth atap pl ic at io n a s a d eri va ti ve fam il y m em be r. The Imm ig rat io n Jud ge de ni edth e ap pl ic at io n a ndord eredInd rawat i rem ov edto Ind on es iaan d Li n re m ov edto Ch in a. Whi le ap pe al in g t he IJ’s de ci si on to th e BIA, the y ha d t he ir s eco ndch il d. Sh ortl y th erea fte r, in Sep te m

be r 20 04 , th e BIA af

firm edth e IJ ’s dec is io n. On Au gu st4, 2 00 6, Li n h ada th irdch il d. Th ree wee ks lat er h e fi le d a m ot io n t o re op enhi s ca se inord er t o fi le a su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andpro te ct io n u nd er the CAT. In h is m ot io n, Li n a rg ue d th athe fear edfor cedst eri li zat io n, fi ne s, an d t ortu re p ur su an t t o C hi na ’s on e-ch il d fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy . The BI A den ie d t he m ot io n b ecau se itwas fi le d a fte r th e 290 -d ay

de ad li ne ge ne ral ly app li cab le to m ot io ns to reo pe n. Lin ap pe al edth at de ci si on an d o n J ul y

2, 2 00 7, we re m an de d t he cas e b ackto th e BIA t o m or e th or ou gh ly exam in e whe th er the ex cep ti on in8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (ii )—wh ere c hang edco un try con di ti on s i n t he co un try of rem ov al affe ctanap pl ic an t’s el ig ib il it y forasylu m

—ap pl ie d t o Li n’s m ot io n t o re op en . On Ju ne 11 , 20 08 , th e BIA ag ai n d en ie d Li n’s m ot io n. Th e BIA re jecte d Li n’s arg um en t tha t h e qua li fie d fo r th atex cep ti on ba se d o n h is pe rs on al ch an ge d ci rcu m st an ce o f ha vi ng an ot he r ch il d. Itals o re jecte d h is arg um en t tha t the re were ch an ge d c ou nt ry

co nd it io ns inCh in a th atqu al ifi edhi m forth e ex cep ti on . Alm os t 2 y ears lat er, i n M arch 20 10 , Linfil edan ot he r m ot io n t o re op en . He arg ue d t ha t h e was en ti tl edto a m ot io n t o re op enun de r th e “ ch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns ” ex cep ti on ba se d o n t he factth atbe cau se he ha d m ul ti pl e ch il dr enhe face d s te ril iz at io n i f he returne d t o C hi naun de r it s o ne -ch il d p ol ic y . His m ot io n in cl ud edhi s o wn af

fid av it , an a ffi da vi t o f hi s m ot he r, pu rp orte d C hi ne se go ve rn m en t d oc um en ts , andco un try repo rts , whi ch he arg ue d s ho wedth athe wou ldbe st eri li zedif h e was rem ov edto Ch in a. He als o a rg ue d t ha t h e wou ldface eco no m ic pe rs ecu ti on un de r th e o ne -ch il d p ol ic y . The BI A fou ndth atth e ev id en ce h e p res en te d re ga rd in g t he th reatof s te ril iz at io n was pre vi ou sl y subm it te d a ndth us pre vi ou sl y av ai labl e, was un au th en ti cat ed , con cern eddi ffer en t

3pr ov in ces inCh in a, orm erel y sh owe d t ha t the co nd it io ns inCh in a were the same as th ey ha d p rev io us ly been . It al so fou ndth atLinpre se nt edno ev id en ce s ho win g th athe wou ldbe subjec te d t o e co no m ic pe rs ecu ti on . Accor di ng ly, itde ni edhi s m ot io n. Lin ap pe al ed . II.

“ W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enanim m ig rat io n p et it io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Ji an g v . U.S. Att’y Gen . , 56 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Mo ti on s t o re op eninrem ov al pro ceed in gs are p art ic ul arl y di sf av or ed .” Id . “ Ourrev ie w is li m it edto de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n in anarb it rary or cap ric io us m an ne r.” Id . Gen eral ly an al ie n m

us t fi le hi s m ot io n t o re op enwithi n 9 0 d ay s o f th e fi na l adm in is tra ti ve rem ov al ord er. 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( i). Ho wev er, “ [t]he re i s no ti m e li m iton th e fi li ng of am ot io n t o re op enif t he ba si s o f th e m ot io n i s t o ap pl y forrel ie f . . . bas edon ch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns ari si ng inth e co un try of na ti on al it y

or the co un try to wh ic h re m ov al ha s b eenord ered , if s uc h e vi de nc e is m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e an d wo ul d n othave be endi sc ov eredor p res en te d a t th e p rev io us pro ceed in g.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (ii ). “ An al ie n wh o a tt em pt s to sh ow t ha t the ev id en ce i s m at eri al be ars a he av y bu rd enan d m

us t p res en t

4ev id en ce tha t d em on strat es th at , if the pro ceed in gs were o pe ne d, the ne w evi de nc e

wou ldli ke ly chan ge th e res ul t i n t he cas e.” J ia ng , 56 8 F .3d at12 56 –5 7. Lindi d n otfil e h is sec on d m ot io n t o re op enwithi n 9 0 d ay s o f hi s fi na l o rd er of rem ov al . There fo re, h e is no t en ti tl edto fil e th atm ot io n u nl es s t he BIA ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t ha t the “ ch an ge d c ou nt ry cir cu m st an ces ” ex cep ti on di d no t ap pl y . 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 ); J ia ng , 56 8 F .3dat 1 25 6. Th e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b ecau se th e ev id en ce Li n p ro du ceddi d n otsh ow tha t the re were an y ch an ge d c ou ntry

co nd it io ns inCh in a reg ard in g s te ril iz at io ns un de r it s on e-ch il d p ol ic y . Ins te ad , at m os t the ev id en ce s ho wedth aton ce Li n h adhi s se co ndch il d h e was un de r si gn ifi can t thr eatof b ei ng st eri li zedif h e was rem ov ed to Ch in a, an d tha t tho se hars h c on di ti on s fo r vi ol at in g t he on e-ch il d p ol ic y co nt in ue d t o b e in effe ctwhen he fil edhi s i ni ti al ap pl ic at io n thr ou ghwhen he fil ed hi s s eco ndm ot io n t o re op en . Ji an g, 5 68 F.3d at12 58 (“ [C]han ge d p ers on al ci rcu m st an ces do no t m eetth e st an da rdfora pe ti ti on to reo pe n.” ) Add it io na ll y , Linha s p oi nt edto no ev id en ce s ho win g tha t h e wou ldbe subjec te d t o e co no m ic pe rs ecu ti on if re m ov edto Ch in a. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

5