The Honor able John R. Adams, United St ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0537n.06 No. 08-3333 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

GU O P INGWU , Petitioner , v. ERIC H. HOL DER, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Respondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE BO AR D OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS O P I N I O N

BEFORE: NORRIS and COLE, Circuit Jud ges; AD AMS, Distric t Judge. * COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Petitioner Guo Ping Wu, a native and citize n o f t h e P eople’ s Republic of China (“ China”), se eks re view of a final orde r of r emoval i s s u ed b y the B oard of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls ( “ B I A” ) d e nyinghis mot ion to re op e n his imm ig ra tio n p ro c e e din g s to a

pp ly for a sy lum based on cha ng ed per sonal circ um s t ance s and cha ng ed countr

y conditions. For the following rea sons, we DENY Wu’s petition for review

. I. BACKG ROUND Wu, who is from Fujian Prov in c e , u n la wfully enter ed the United States in 1995 without being inspected or admitted by an im migr ation office r. In 1996, he wa s char g ed as be ing de portable f orNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (D) states: “An a pplication for a sy lum may be conside red, 1 notwithstanding subpar ag raphs ( B) [requiring alien to apply for a sy lum within one y ear of ar rival in U nit e d St a te s] and

(C ) [l imi tin g a lie n to on e a sylum a pp lic a tio n], i f t

he a lie n d e mon str a te s to the satisfac tion of the Attorney Gene ral . . . the e x istence of chang ed cir cumstance s which materia lly

aff ect the a pplicant’s elig ibilit y

for a sy lum . . . .” 2 h av i n g en t er edt h e c o u n t ry u n l aw fu l l y . W ufa i l edt o ap p ea r a t h i s h ea ri n g, an d an i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge (“I J ”) or dere d his deportation in absentia. Wu rema ined in the United States, and in 2002 he marr ied

ano the r C hin e se c iti zen . I n June of 20 03 , the y ha d a c hil d. I n Ma rc h of 20 03 , Wu

fi le d a mot ion to

re op e n h is p ro c e e din g s w iththe I J, cl a imi nghe did no t r e c e ive no tic e of

the tim e and

pla c e of his hear ing a nd seekingto apply

for a djustment of status based on an e mploy er- sponsored visa pe tition. The I J denied the motion, the BIA aff irmed, and this Court denied Wu’s pe tition for r eview. S e e Wu v. Gonzales , No. 05-3062 (6th Cir. Oc t. 24, 2005). On Marc h 1 4, 20 05 , Wu

fi le d a sec on d mo tio n to re op e n h is i mmi g ratio n p ro c e e din g s— thi s tim e wi th the B I A—

to a pp ly fo r a sylum

. Th e mot ion a lle g e d that Wu h a d e xpe ri e nc e d a c ha ng e in

c ir c ums tanc e s; n a me ly , th a t his wif e wa s e xpe c tin g the ir

se c on d c hil d, and

that on e of

the m w ou ld li k el y b e forc ibly

sterilized if they

returne d to China. The motion was supported by extensive do c ume ntatio n o f C hin a ’s bir th- lim it pol ic ie s and pr a c tic e s. Th e B I A de nie d the mot ion a s unti me ly and b ar re d b y

the re striction on succe ssive asylum applications, noting that a chang e in per sonal circ umstances, suc h as the birth of a child, do es n ot constitute an exception to the limi tations on motions t o reope n. Wu p e ti tio ne d th e Sixth C ir c uit fo r r e vie w o f t

hat de c isi on , a

rguin g that 8 U .S. C. § 1158(a) (2)( D) p er m i ts aliens to file succe ssive asylum petitions on the basis of e ither cha ng ed 1No. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

3 pe rs on a l c ir c ums tanc e s o r c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion s, de sp ite the pro vi si on in 8 U. S.C. § 1229a(c )(7) that bars untimely motions t o reope n unless the movant s hows cha ng ed countr

y conditions. The Six th Circ uit noted that the BIA had not a ddresse d this non-f rivolous argument and

rema nded to a llow it do so. See W u v. Gonzales , 214 F. App’x 592, 594-95 (6th Cir. 2007). Befor e decidingWu’s case on rema nd, the BI A encountere d and resolved t his same question in Matter of C- W - L

- , 24 I . & N . Dec . 346 (B I A 2007). I n that case , the B I A re jected the interpre tation of the statutes upon which Wu relies and he ld that an alien subjec t to a final o rd er o f re m o val may not submit a successive a sy lum application without first m o v i n g t o re open his ca se, and that such a motion would be subject to the time a nd numerica l limi ts found in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)( 7) unless the alien esta blishes el i gi b ility

for the c hang ed-c ountry -conditions exception set forth in that section. Id. at 352-53. When Wu’s case wa s rema nded, he submitt ed a supplemental brief and ex hibits to the B I A. I n add i t i o n t o arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (D) a llowed him to file an untimely asylum applicati o n b ased on chang ed per sonal circ umstances, he raised the alternative argument that

c on dit ion s in Ch ina

have c ha ng e d s inc e his de po rt a tio n w a s o rd e re d. I n s up po rt of thi s a rgume nt, Wu subm itted three documents that wer e previously submitt ed by another petitioner in Shou Y ung Guo v. Gonzale

s , 463 F.3d 109, 112- 13 (2 d C i r. 2006) (remandingfor the B I A to consider the signific ance of three documents, which ha ve subseque ntly

come to be c alled the “ Guo do c ume nts ” in other ca ses). The first document, Administrati ve O pinion on Sanctions AgainstFamily PlanningVi ola tio ns By

Zhe ng Y u H e an d H is S po us e , promulg ated by

the Chan gl e City

Family -Planning Administration (May

22, 2003), conc ludes that children bor n abroa d to Chinese nationals count forNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

4 purp os e s o f t

he loc a l birth- lim itatio n poli c ie s, un le ss the pa re nts are pe rm ane nt re sid e nts ov e rs e a s,

an d th a t s u c h b ir

th s w il l b e “ s u

b je c t t o e n f

o r c e me n t u

n d e r th e F u ji anPr o v in c e F a mily -Planning Reg ulations

. ” (Petit ioner’s A ppendix (“App.”) 57- 58.) The se cond docume nt, Administrati ve De c isi on on Re qu est f

or Di re c tiv e Fr om Fu

zh ou City

Ad mi nis tra tio n o n F

am ily -P la nn in g in Connection with Birt h of a Second Child by Zheng Y u He of C

h a n gle City Municipal Bureau of Construction and His Spous e in USA , a u t h o r e d b y t h e F u

j i a n P r o v i n c e D e p art m e n to f F a m i l yPlanning Administration, also states that the bir t h of a se cond child abr oad constitutes a violation of the loca l birth-limit ation policies and “ is subject to sanctions and pena lties applied under the Fujian Province Fa

mily -Planning Reg ulations to returnee s from over seas in other cate g ories.” ( App. 61-62.) The third document, a 1999 Q & A for Changle Cit y F a mi l y- Planning Information Handbook, states: “W hat bi rt h- c on tr ol m e a sure s are to b e imp os e d u po n b ir th o f a fi rs t c hil d / a second c hild pursuant to the provincial family -planning regulations? A[nswer]: An I UD insertion is mandatory

upon bi rt h o f a f

irst child; steriliz ation upon birth of a se cond child.” ( App. 64-68). T h e as s erte d implication of the Guo d o c u me n ts is th a t, a t le a s t in F u ji an Pr o v in c e , p ar e n ts o f two

c hil dr e n w ill be su

bje c te d to ste ri lizatio n, e ve n if on e of the c hil dr e n w a s b or

n in the Un ite d St a te s. Wu also submi tted numerous other docume nts , including the 2006 United States Depa rtment of State Country

Report on Human Rig hts Practice s for China, a 2003 U nited States Depa rtment of State consular inf

ormation sheet ab o u t China, newspape r ar ticles about China’s birth-c ontrol po lic ie s, and

va ri ou s o the r r e po rt s. The B I A ag ain denied Wu’s motion to reopen. B ased on Ma tte r of C- W - L

- , the B I A found that Wu’s asy lum claim based on c hang ed per sonal circ umstances wa s barr ed by 8 U.S.C. §No. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

5 1229a(c )(7)

. On W u’s claim of chang ed country conditions, the BI A not ed that it had rece ntly issued two opinions, Matter of J - W - S- , I

. & N . Dec . 185 (B I A 2007), a nd Matter of S- Y

- G- , 24 I . & N

. Dec . 247 (B I A 2007), in which it fo u n d t h at t he Guo documents do “not de monstrate that the Chinese g overnme nt has a national pol icy of requiring forc ed sterilization of a par ent who re turns with children born in the U nited States.” (App. 3.) T he B I A, re fer encingthese prior opinions, stated that “if a returning national is pe nalized a t a ll, the evidenc e sug g ests that he or she will be sanctioned throug h fines or othe r ec onomic penalties whic h do not r ise to the level of per secution or torture .” (App. 3.) Wu petitioned this Court for revie w. II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review “The decision to g rant or deny a motion to reope n . . . is w ithin the discr etion of the B oard,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) , so we review the BIA’s denial of such motions for abuse of discretion. Zhang

v . Mukase

y , 5 43 F.3d 851, 854 ( 6th Cir. 2008). An abuse of discretion occ urs if the de nial “‘w as made without a rational explanation, inexplicably depar ted from esta

blished policies, or re sted on an imper m i ssible basis such as invidious discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or

g roup.’” Allabani v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (alterations i n orig inal) (quoting Balani v. IN S , 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 ( 6th Cir. 1982)). Th e B I A’ s f

a c tua l det e rm inatio ns “ are c on c lus ive un le ss a ny re a so na ble a dju dic a tor

wo uld be c omp e lle d to c on c lud e to t he c on tr ary .” 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); S te r k a j v

. H o lde r , 3 15 F. Ap p’ x 58 6, 58 8 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 9) ; see also Bi Feng Liu v. Holde r , 560 F.3d 485, 491- 92 (6th Cir. 2009) (r eviewing BIA’s factual findings on motion to reopen unde r substantial-evide nce sta ndard) ;No. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

6 but se e Hanan v. Mu kasey , 519 F.3d 760, 763 ( 8th Cir. 2008) (holding that the court lac ked jurisd iction over fa ctual dete rminations relating to chang ed countr y conditions asserted in motion to reope n). Th e B I A m ay

de ny a mot ion to r e op e n p ro c e e din g s if

the mov ant f

a ils to m a ke a

pr ima fa c ie showing of elig ibilit y for the underlying substantive r elief. See I NS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1 98 8) ; Alizoti v. Gonzales , 477 F.3d 448, 452 ( 6th Cir. 2007). To make out a prima fac ie case , a

mov ant m us t put f or th “ e vid e nc e tha

t ‘r e ve a ls a re a so na

ble lik e lih oo d th a t th e statut or y re qu ir e me nts for r elief ha

ve bee n satisfied.’” Al izo ti , 4 7 7 F. 3 d at 4 5 2 (q u o t i n g Matter of S- V- , 2 2 I . & N . Dec

. 1306, 1308 (B I A 2000)). Thus, Wu must show a re asonable likelihood that, if his case is re opened, he will be able to establish that chang ed countr y conditions have caused him to have a well-founde d fea r of forc ed sterilization. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42) (“[A] pe rson who has a we ll founded fe ar that he or she will be forced to underg o [i nvoluntary sterilization] or subj ect to persecution for [failure to do so] shall be dee med to have a well founde d fe ar o f p er s ec ution on account of political

o p i n i o n . ” )

. E v e n i f t h e m o v an t m a k e s o u t a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e f

o r r e l i e f , t h e B I A h a s d i s c r e t i on to deny the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)

. B. Change in p ersonal circ um stances After Wu filed his openingbrief, the Six th Circuit decided Zhang v. Mukase y , a g re e ingwi th the B I A’s re asoning in Matter of C- W - L- an d r e

je c ti n g th e s a me ar g u me n t n o w a d v an c e d b y Wu wi t h r e s p e c t t o h i s c h an g e i n p e r s o n a l c i r c u m s t an c e s an d t h e a p p ar e n t c o n f

l i c t b e t w e e n 8 U. S.C. §§ 1158(a) (2)( D) a

nd 1229a(c )(7) (C)(ii). See Zhang , 543 F.3d at 858-59. Zhang int e rp re te d th e se two provisions to operate in c onjunction such that “a n alien subjec t to a fina l order of remova l forNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

Wu does not alleg e in his briefs, nor does the re cord indicate, that his wife a ctually g ave 1 birth to a second c hild. I nstead, Wu continues to state that “his sec ond child was e x pecte d to be born on Oc tober 17, 2005.” (Wu Br. 59 n.19.) 7 90 day s or more [ i s require d] t o make a succe ssful motion t o reope n prior to consider ation of a

succe ssful application for asylum,” and that such a motion will not be excepted fr om the time and numerica l limi tations of § 1229a(c )(7) (C) by virtue of c hang ed per sonal circ umstances. Id. at 859. Zhang fo re c los e s Wu’s argume nt that the B I A er re d in dec lin ing to r e op e n h is c a se du e to t he bir th of his second c hild. See also Hu v . Holder , 318 F. Ap p ’x 348, 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that 1 birth of a c hild is a chang e in per sonal circ umstances; citing case s). C. Change in coun try c ondi tions; w ell-foun ded f ear of forced ster ilization Wu’s remaining argument is that he has esta blis hed the e x istence of

chang ed countr

y

c on dit ion s in

Chi na . To su c c e e d, Wu must pr e se nt ev ide nc e that “is ma te ri a l and wa s not a va ila ble and would not have been disc overe d or pre sented at the previo u s p ro ce eding.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a (c )( 7) (C )( ii) ; see also 8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 2( c )( 3) (i i) . “ A m oti on to r e op e n p ro c e e din g s sh a ll s ta te the new f acts that will be prove n at a he aringt o b e h el d if the motion is gra nted and sha ll be supported by

aff idavits or ot her evidentiary materia l.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). Rathe r than foc using

on wh e the r c on dit ion s in

Chi na ha d c ha ng e d, the B I A s imp ly

he ld t hat Wu c ou ld n ot s ho w a

we llfounded fea

r of perse cution under c urre nt conditions in C hina. B eca use this was a suf

ficient re ason f o r d e n y in g Wu ’ s mo ti o n , w e w il l u p h o ld th e B I A ’ s r

u li n g o nth is g r o u n d , a lt

h o u g h w e n o te th a t W u has also fa iled to establish that conditions in C hina have chang ed since his prior proce eding

. Th e B I A d id n ot a

bu se its dis c re tio n in

fi nd ingthat, i f Wu’ s c a se we re re op e ne d, he c ou ldNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

8 not establish a well-f

ounded fe ar of

forc ed sterilization in C hina. Our pr evious ca ses involving claims like Wu’s have re ache d the same c onclusion: “The f inding that c hildren born outside of China are not counted for purposes of China’ s population-control policies continues to be acc epted by the B I A, as we ll as by

other c ourts of appe als.” Fang Huang v. Muk asey , 523 F .3 d 640 , 653 (6 th Cir . 2 00 8) ; s e e a ls o Yan g Li n v . H o ld er , 320 F . A

pp ’x 42 8, 43 6- 37 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) (p e r c ur iam) (hol d in g th a t t

h e B I A d id

n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e ti o nin

d e n y in g a

mo ti o nto r e o p e ns u

p p o rte d b y the Guo documents); Hu , 318 F. App’ x at 352 (holding that substantial evidence supported “the BIA’s conclusion that childre n born abr oad ar e not counted f or purposes o f C h i n a’s f amily -planning policies”). T hese c ases support our deter mination that t h e BIA did not abuse its discretion in the prese nt case
. Wu point s to no evidence that pare nts returning to China with children born ab ro ad have actua lly been subjected to for cible sterilization. The Guo documents mere ly sug g est by implication that on e ind ivi du a l mi g ht h a ve su ff e re d s uc h a

fate , and th at othe r s imi larl y sit uate d in div idu a ls mig ht a s w e ll. Th is do es no t sati sf y the re qu ir e me nt t

hat Wu p re se nt “ re a so na bly sp e c if ic information showing a re al threat of individual persec ution.” Se e Ha rc he nk o v . I NS , 379 F.3d 405, 410 (6th Cir. 2004). Th e c a se s c ite d b y

Wu in wh ic h o the r c ourt s o f a

pp e a ls hav e grante d r e lie f t o Ch ine se pe tit ion e rs c la imi ng fe ar of ste ri lizatio n h a ve inv olv e d s tr on g e r s ho wi ng s o f a n in div idu a lize d r isk of har m. For e x ample, in Xiu Zhen Lin v. Mukasey , 532 F.3d 596, 597 (7th Cir. 2008), the petitioner submitt ed a le tter fr om the g overningbody of her village stating that it was a war e that she ha d g iven birth to a third child in th e United States a nd that she “c erta inly

will be subjected to ster iliz ationNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

9 proce dures” unless she obtained c itiz en or pe rmane nt-reside nt status or an a dvance d deg ree in the United States. I n Y

aner Li v. U. S

. A t t o rney G en. , 488 F.3d 1371, 1373 ( 11th Cir. 2007), the pe tit ion e r p re se nte d h e r o wn a ff ida vit de sc ri bi ng sec on d- ha

nd a c c ounts of

fo rc e d s te ri lizatio ns in 2005 in her h o m e v i llag e, as w ell as an a ffidavit fr om her mother stating that thre e women in the village had bee n forc ibly

sterilized. See also Xiu Qin Lin v. Muk asey , 275 F. App’x 249 (4th Cir. 2008) (similar). Despite both parties’ failure to mention it i n their brief s, the rec ord conta ins a 2005

a ff ida vit that Wu s ub mit te d to the B I A, in wh ic h he state s that his sis te r, his wi fe ’s c ou sin , a nd his wi fe ’s a un t w e re fo rc ibl y

ste ri lize d a ft e r e a c h o f th em had tw o c hil dr e n. (A pp . 3 18 .) Whil e thi s lends cre dence to Wu’s fear that he or his wife will be forc ibly sterilized, there is no indication that these wome n g ave bir

th to their children while living abroa d, so the af fi d av i t does not undermine the B I A’s conc lusion that parents of c hildren born a broad ha ve not bee n subjected to force d sterilization. Ov er all , the evidenc e submitted by Wu was less probative of a likelihood of for ced ste ri lizatio n th an th a t of

fe re d in oth e r c a se s, and we c ann ot s ay that th e B I A a

bu se d it s d isc re tio n in denying his motion to reopen. Wu r a ises se ve ra l ot

he r c ha lle ng e s to the B I A’ s d e c isi on , b ut, a s d e sc ri be d b e low , th e se

c ha lle ng e s f

a il. 1. Absenceof documents from the re cord in this c ase that were present in Matte r o f S

Y- G- and Matter of

J - W- S- does not compe l a remand Wu argues that the B I A should not have re lied on Matter of S- Y - G- and Matter of J- W

- Sbe c a us e the re c or ds in t

ho se c a se s c on ta ine d a dd iti on a l do c ume nts tha t are no t pres ent he re —in part i cu l ar , a 2007 State De partment re port ca lled Chi na : Pro fil e of A sy lum Cla im s a nd Cou ntr yNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

10 Conditi ons and an attache d letter (the “Noy es letter” )—that supported the BIA’s conc lusion that returni n g ali ens have not been subjec ted to forc ed sterilization. W u seeks a rema nd direc ting the BIA to limit its analy sis to the documents i n the record of this case . Such a re mand is unnece ssary for se vera l rea sons. F ir st, if we we re to r e mand , the B I A co uld sim ply take a dmi nis tr a tiv e no tic e of the 20 07 State Depa rtment repor

t and other g overnme nt documents on which it ha s relied in pa st cases, a nd there is lit tle doubt that it would then hold, a s it ha s previously , that those documents outweig h the Guo documents on which Wu relies. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)( 3)(iv) (allowing administrative notice of the contents of of

ficial doc uments); Matter of J- W - S- , 24 I

. & N. Dec

. at 189-90 (noting that 2007 State depar

tment report state s that children of Chinese pare nts returning from over seas a re “ not . .

. c ounte d” fo r b ir

th- pla nn ingpurp os e s in

Chi na , a nd taki ng a dmi nis tr a tiv e no tic e of oth e r S ta te De pa rtme nt an d Can a dia

n g ov e rnme nt d oc ume nts su pp or tin g thi s c on c lus ion ); Matter of S- Y - G- , 24 I . & N. De c . at 25 5- 56 (n oti ngtha t 20 07 State De pa

rtme nt d oc ume nt o utw e ig hs Guo documents). Remanding to the BIA in the fa ce of this clear p re ce d en t woul d be futile. Se e Y an g Li n , 3 20 F. Ap p’ x at 43 7 (“[ I ] t is un ne c e ssa ry to r e mand

in c a se s li ke thi s o ne wh e re we c an p re dic t w ith confide nce that the ag ency would rea ch the same re sult absent the er ror.” ). Second, par

t of Wu’s objection to the BIA’s re liance on Matter of J- W - S- and Matter of SY - G- is that he “ did

no t ha ve an o pp or

tun ity to a dd

re ss the pa

rt ic ula r iss ue ” ra ise d in the do c ume nts relied on in those c ases that we re not part of t he record in this case . (B r. 58.) This argument lacks merit—Wu eng ag ed in an extensive critique of the Noy es l etter in his brief to the BIA. (App. 42- 46.)No. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

11 Third, the pre sent rec ord contains indications that returning Chinese citizens with Americanborn childre n are not forcibly sterilized, and Wu has not put forth compelling e vi d en ce to the

c on tr ary . F or ex amp le, the 20 04 State De pa rtme nt c ountr

y re po rt state s th a t “ U. S. d ipl omats i n C h i n a a re n o taw ar e o f a n y ca s es i nwh i ch re tu rn ee s fr o m t h e U n i t edS t at es we re fo rc edt o u n d er go sterilization procedure s on their return.” (App. 714.) As noted above , Wu is unable to fill this ga p in the evidenc e. See, e .g. , Zheng v. Muk asey , 546 F.3d 70, 73 ( 1st Cir. 2008) (aff irming B I A’s denia l of re opening wher e petitioner “fa iled to br ing forth any evidenc e which would call into question the [Board]’s deter

minations in” S- Y

- G- and J- W

- S- ). T here fore , the B I A’s re liance on pr ior ca ses with differ ent re cords doe s not compel a re mand. 2. W u fails t o distingui sh the BIA’ s decisions in S- Y- G- and J- W- SWu attempts to disti ng uish Matter of J-W -S- , which the B I A found “ square ly on point,” by po int ingou t th a t Matter of J-W -S- de a lt w ithan a sylum

a pp e a l w hil e thi s c a se inv olv e s a mot ion to reope n. This argument fails bec ause Wu’s ability to establish a prima fa cie c ase is dire ctly related to his abilit y

to succe ed on his asylum claim if the case is reope ned. Se e Al izo ti , 477 F.3d at 452. There fore , J-W

-S- ’s ho ldi ng that the ve ry do c ume nts a t is su e he re do no t su pp or t an a sylum

c la im supports the BIA’s dec ision that W u is not entitl ed to a r eopening of his case

. Wu attempts t o distinguish Matter of S- Y - G- based on its fa cts. Ma tter of S- Y - G- was dec i d ed fo l l owing a re mand in which the Sec ond Circuit directe d the B I A to consider the Guo documents. Two of

the Guo do c ume nts (a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on s f ro m F uji an Pr ov inc e a

n d Cha ng le City ) re late to the ca se of a n individual named Z heng Yu He (“H e”) who was a Chinese g overnme ntNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

12 employ ee a

nd Communi st Party

member w hose wife g ave bir th to a second child while they wer e

on a nine-month “fa

mily trip” to the United States. See M atter of S- Y

- G- , 24 I

. & N. Dec . at 254. The Guo documents show that the loca l gove rnments deter mined that He’ s child wou l d co u n t for p u r p o s e s o f t h e f a m i l y - p l an n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , an d t h a tt h e n o r

m a l l o c a l s an c t i o n s w o u l d a p p l y . In Matter of S- Y

- G- , the BI A determined that these documents did not establish a well-founded f ear of for ced ste riliz ation for two r easons. First, as noted above, the BIA found a 2007 State Depa

rtment document conc luding that evidenc e did not show that returningaliens we re f orcibly sterilized was

more re cent a

nd more c redible tha

n the Guo documents. Id. at 255-56. Second, the B I A noted that He’ s situation was fac tually distinguishable f

rom the ap p l i cant’s in S- Y - G- , such that it was not clea r that the applicant would rec eive the same treatment a s He. Id

. at 256. I n particula r, the S

- YG- a pp lic ant w a s n ot a

g ov e rnme nt e mpl oy e e or c omm un ist pa rt y me mbe r a

nd ha d b een li ving in the United Stat es fo r a l o n g period of time. Id . I n addition, the BIA noted that the a pplicant’s second c hild had been bor n seven y ear s after

his first, w hile He’ s second c hild had been bor n afte r an interva l of five- and-a -half y ear s. Id . The B I A found this distinction relevant bec ause longe r intervals bet we en b i rt h s ar e ge n er al l y l o o k edu p o nm o re fa v o rab l y

u n d er fa m i l y -p l an n ing r eg

ulations in China. Id. Wu c la ims that Matter of S- Y - G- is disti ng uishable from his case beca use hi s children w ere born only

tw o -and-a-ha lf y ear s apar t, making him eve n more likely than He to f

ace forc ed sterilization. However, Wu, like the applica nt in S- Y - G- , wa s no t a g ov e rnme nt e mpl oy e e , n ot a

c omm un ist -p art y me mbe r, and

no t me re ly

on a sh or t st ay in t he Un ite d Stat es. Th ese fa c ts a llNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

13 s u gges t, as they

did in Matter of S- Y

- G- , that the Guo a d mi n is tr a ti v e d e c is io n s w o uld not

nece ssarily

apply to Wu. The fact that Wu’s childre n wer e born closer toge ther in time than He’s does not compel a

finding that the Guo documents would apply to Wu. 3. W u h a s not put fort h evide nce that he would be e conomically c oerce d to undergo sterilizat ion Wu a lso argue s th a t he c ou ld b e c omp e lle d to un de rg o ste ri lizatio n b y vir tue of e c on omi c pe na lti e s. Ho we ve r, Wu ha s no t po int e d to e vid e nc e that wo uld c omp e l thi s Court to dis a g re e wi th the B I A’s conc lusion, in reliance on Matter of J- W - S- , that th e fi nes fa c ingre tur nin g a lie ns wi th Americ an-bor

n children do not rise to the level of perse cution. (App. 3.) Wu cites a sentenc e in the 2006 State Depa

rtment repor

t stating that some c ouples violating the child-birth rules we re a ssessed f in e s “ w h ic h s o me ti me s r e a c h e d 1 0 ti me s a

p e r s o n ’ s an n u a l d isposable i n c o me . ” ( A p p . 7 9

. ) Wu also points to a document from the I NS’s Resource I nformation Center , stating “ [ f] ines ca n equal

sever al y ear s’ wag es fo r an aver ag e wor ker.” (App. 604). While fines of this magnitude mig ht eff ectively coer ce a person in Wu’s position to ag ree to be sterilized, se e Xi u Zh e n Li n , 532 F.3d at 598 (re manding for B I A to consider whether fines fa cing returningChinese would ef fec tively forc e t h em t o s u

b m i tt o s t er i l i z at i o n ), W uh as ci t edn o ev i d en ce o f th e fr eq u en cy wi t h wh i ch s u ch l ar ge fines ar e ac tually assessed, nor has he pointed to e vidence (or e ven alleg ed) that he lacks the means to pay a lar g e fine

. There fore , the B I A did not abuse its discretion in re jecting Wu’s unsupported arguments that he will fac e a f ine so larg e that he w ill eff ectively be forced to underg o sterilization. 4. The brevity of the BI A’s opinion does not require a rem and Wu ar gu es that the B I A’s opinion does not show that it actually considere d the GuoNo. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

14 do c ume nts and

a pp lie d th e m to Wu’ s case . Wu c ite s n o Si xth Cir c uit

c a se law i n s up po rt

of his argument. I n a ca se with similar fac ts cited by the Gover

nment, W ang v. BIA , 437 F.3d 270, 272- 73 (2d Cir. 2006), t h e S ec o n d Circuit rejec ted this ty pe of a rg ument. I n W

ang , a Chinese national

so u g h t to r e o p e n h is a s ylum c la im b a s e d o n c h an g e d c o u n tr y c o n d it io n s , a s s e rti n g th at he f ace d ste ri lizatio n u

po n r e tur n to Chi na

a s a re su lt o f havin g tw o c hil dr e n wh ile liv ingin t he Un ite d St a te s. Id

. at 273. The BIA issued a terse decision denying the motion. Id. at 275. On re view, the Sec ond Cir c uit re a so ne d th a t, o n th e on e ha nd , “ the B I A a

bu se s its dis c re tio n if it fa ils c omp le te ly to a dd re ss

e vid e nc e of

c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion s of

fe re d by a pe tit ion e r . . . [;] [t]he B I A s ho uld de mon str a te that it has considered such evidence , even if only to dismi ss it.” Id . (citations omitted). On the other hand, the B I A is not require d to parse or ref ute on the re cord e very

individual argument or docume nt of fe re d b y the pe tit ion e r, and “ [t]his is p art ic ula

rl y tr ue fo r e vid e nc e . . . w hic h th e B I A i s a sk e d to consider time a

nd ag ain.” Id . We find this reasoning convincingas applied to Wu’s ca se. Wu cites a Second C ircuit case rea ching a seemingly opposite conclusion. See Zhi Y un Gao v. Muk asey , 508 F.3d 86, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2007) (re manding beca use the B I A fa iled to show that it had g iven meaning ful consider ation to the petit ioner’s documents). Howeve r, as noted a bove, we have

no do ub t th a t th e B I A w ou ld de c ide thi s ma tte r the same wa y if the Cou

rt re mand e d a

nd dir e c te d it to expand its rea soning; there fore , rema nding the case would be futile. Se e Y an g Li n , 320 F. App’ x at 437. We h a ve c on sid e re d Wu ’s oth e r a rgume nts and

fi nd the m to be wi tho ut m e ri t.No. 08-3333

Guo Ping W

u v. Holder

15 III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY Wu’s petition for review and AF F IRM the dec ision of the B I A.