2008 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 5-12-2008 

# D ong 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 . 07-2772

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_2008

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 2008 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 " D on g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1236. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1236NOT 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- 2772

___________ XI U YAN D ONG, Pet i t i oner

v. 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 73- 477- 966) I m m i gr at i on J udge: 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 ay1, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay12, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM X i u Y an D ong, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or der of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , deny i ng D ong’ s m ot i on t o r eopen a s u n t i m e l y.2

T he B oar d i s s ued the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve or deri n D ong’ s cas e on A pr i l 28, 1998, and s ubs equent l ydeni ed herm ot i on t o r econs i der . D ong di d nots eek r evi ew of ei ther deci s i on befor e the C our tof A ppeal s . Seven y ear s l at er , D ong m oved t o r eopen he rcas e, ar gui ng thats he coul d be for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i f s he i s r eturned t o C hi na bec aus e s he has tw o chi l dr en. She al s o fea r s thats he coul d be pl ace d i n a l aborcamp and t or tur ed b e c a u se sh e lef

t C h in a ill e g a lly . T h e B IA d e n ied D o n g ’s m o tio n to re o p e n a s u n tim e ly beca us e i tw as notfi l ed w i thi n 90 day s aft erthe B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng herappea l . T he m o ti o n to reo p en w as n o t r ec eive d b ythe B IA u n ti l A p ri l of 2 0 0 7 , m o re tha n eigh t y ea rs to o la te . B e c a u se th e d e n ial o f

a m o tio n to re o p e n is a f in a l o rd e r, w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to r evi ew the dec i s i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . See Sevi oan v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 171 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , G u o v . A sh c ro f t, 38 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), an d w e w ill re v e rs e th e B IA ’s d e c is io n o n ly if it is “ a rb itr a ry, irr a tio n a l, o r c o n tr a ry to la w .” Id . A pet i t i onerm us tfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen w i thi n 90- day s of the B I A ’ s fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve or der . 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) . A n exce pt i on t o the 90- daybarforfi l i ng a m ot i on t o r eopen maybe gr ant ed onl yi f ther e ar e cha nged countrycondi t i ons as demonstr at ed byevi dence that“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 orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous hear i ng. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) ; Fi l j a v. G onzal es , 447 F. 3d 241, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he B I A concl uded thatD ong’ s evi denceB uts ee X i ao X i ng N i v. G onzal es , 494 F. 3d 260, 269 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng that 1 r emand foragenc ycons i der at i on of document s noti n the r ecor d i s i nappr opr i at e i n the a b se n c e o f

g o v e rn m e n t co n se n t b e c a u se “ a g e n c yre g u latio n s s e t f o rth p ro c e d u re s to r eopen a cas e bef

or e the B I A forthe t aki ng of addi t i onal evi dence . ”) 3 di d notdemonstr at e a mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s i n C hi na forpurpos es of m eet i ng the exc ept i on t o t he s t atut oryt i m e l i m i t . T he B I A cons i der ed D ong’ s evi dence of the bi r th of a c hi l d i n t he U . S. t o be evi dence of cha nged per s onal ci r cumst ance s , r athert han of cha nged condi t i ons i n C hi na. W e agr ee thatD ong’ s change d per s onal ci r cumst ance s a r e d i s t i n c tf

r o m c h a n g e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s a r i s i n g i n Ch i n a . S e e We i Gu a n g Wa n g v . BI A, 4 3 7 F .3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (f in d in g th a t th e b irth o f

th e p e tit io n e r’s tw o c h ild re n in thi s countryw as evi dence of cha nged per s onal ci r cumst ance s , r atherthan of c hanged c o n d itio n s in C h in a ); Z h a o v . G o n z a le s , 4 4 0 F .3 d 4 0 5 , 4 0 7 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). D ong ar gues thatherm ot i on t o r eopen i s s ubj ectt o the cha nged countrycondi t i ons exce pt i on and s houl d have be en gr ant ed bas ed on document s cont ai ned i n Shou Y ung G uo v. G onaza l es , 463 F. 3d 109 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ; s ee a l s o L i n v. A t t orneyG ener al , 468 F .3 d 1 6 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (o rd e rin g re m a n d to th e B IA to c o n sid e r d o c u m e n ts s u b m itt e d in Shou Y ung G uo) , r eh’ g gr ant ed, L i n v. U . S. D ep’ t . of J us t i ce, 473 F. 3d 48 ( 2d C i r . 2007) (h o ld in g th e re is n o p ro c e d u re b yw h ich a p e tit io n e r c a n m o v e in th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls to rem an d a c ase fo r co n side rati o n o f n ew ev iden ce ; r em an d ing instead b ase d o n the c o u rt ’s equi t abl e pow er s ) . I n Shou Y ung G uo , the Second Ci r cui tvaca t ed the B I A ’ s deni al of 1 the pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on document s r efl ect i ng a 2003 dec i s i on bytheT he document s i ntr oduced bythe pet i t i oneri n Shou Y ung G uo deal tw i th the 2 s anct i ons appl i cabl e t o C hi nes e nat i onal s w ho had gi ven bi r th t o a chi l d w hi l e l i vi ng abr oad. T he C hangl e C i tydeci s i on caut i oned thatC hi nes e nat i onal s engagi ng i n “any re p ro d u c tiv e b e h a v io r in v io latio n o f f a m ily -p lan n in g e n f

o rc e m e n t in C h in a ” w h ile over s eas w i l l be s anct i oned ac cor di ng t o fami l y - pl anni ng rul es and r egul at i ons enfor ced atthe l ocal l evel , s ubj ectt o exce pt i ons forthos e havi ng a perm anentr es i dence over s eas ora t empora r yvi s a foratl eas ta thr ee y ears t ay . T he Fuj i an Pr ovi nce de ci s i on aff i r m ed th e C h a n g le C ity d e c is io n . 4 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 . D ong’ s document s att ache d t o herm ot i on t o r eopen i ncl uded heraff i davi ts t at i ng t hat 3 sh e h a d a c h ild b o rn in th e U n ited S tate s in 2 0 0 0 , a b irth c e rtific a te f o r a d a u g h ter b o rn in C hi na i n 1991, a bi r th cert i fi cat e fora s on born i n the U ni t ed St at es i n 2000, a 1999 m arr i age c ert i fi cat e, tw o aff i davi t s fr om D ong’ s femal e r el at i ves s t at i ng theyhad bee n fo rciblysteri li ze d af

ter ha v ing tw o ch il d ren (on e in 2 0 0 7 , the o ther o n an u n stat ed d ate), an d sev era l un d ated n ew sp ap er a rt icl es. (Se e A d m inistrati v e R ec o rd (“ A . R . ”) 1 7 -30 . ) 4 C hangl e C i tyFam i l y - Pl anni ng A dm i ni s tr at i on and the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce D epart m entof F a m ily -P lan n in g A d m in istra tio n , the p ro v in c e w h e re th e p e tit io n e r in G u o liv e d a n d to w h ich s h e w o u ld b e d ep o rt ed . Id. at 11 3 -14 . U n d er the 2 0 0 3 d ec isi o n , fo reign -bo rn 2 chi l dr en w oul d be count ed i n det erm i ni ng vi ol at i ons of the one- chi l d pol i cy . I d. T he C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e lo c a llyiss u e d d o c u m e n tatio n len t “p o w e rf u l p o ten tial su p p o rt to a fi ndi ng of cha nged ci r cumst ance s beca us e i ts t at es thata par entof tw o chi l dr en s uch as G uo w oul d, on herr eturn, be s ubj ectt o for ced s t er i l i zat i on, even i f one w er e born out s i de of C hi na. ” I d. at115. T he document s thatD ong att ache d t o herm ot i on t o r eopen di d notcont ai n the document s s he r el i es on fr om Shou Y ung G uo, buti ns t ead r efe r ence d the Second C i r cui t ’ s ci t at i on t o t hos e document s i n Shou Y ung G uo. Pur s uantt o the r egul at i ons 3 g o v e rn in g re o p e n in g , an a lien ’s m o tio n m u st “ sta te th e n e w f a c ts th a t w ill b e p ro v e n a t a5

hear i ng t o be hel d i f the mot i on i s gr ant ed and s hal l be s uppor t ed byaff i davi t s orother evi dent i arym at er i al . . . and al l s uppor t i ng document at i on. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) . O urr evi ew of the r ecor d i s confi ned s ol el yt o the evi dence thatD ong pr es ent ed t o t he B I A . See B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 328- 30 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (decl i ning t o take j ud i ci al no t i ce of new cou ntryreport s, and ob serving t hat “[i ]ti s a s al ut arypr i nci pl e of a dm i ni s tr at i ve l aw r evi ew thatthe r evi ew i ng courtactupon a cl os ed re c o rd .”); S e w a k v . IN S , 9 0 0 F .2 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (“ C o n g re ss h a s e x p re ss ly l i m i t ed ourdet erm i nat i on of pet i t i ons forr evi ew of or der s of deport at i on s ol el yt o the a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd a n d th e a p p ro p ri a te ly su p p o rt e d f in d in g s o f

f a c t m a d e b e lo w .” ). T hus , beca us e D ong di d notpr ovi de the r el evants uppor t i ng document at i on r egar di ng change d countr ycondi t i ons t o t he B I A i n herm ot i on t o r eopen, r emand t o the B I A i s not re q u ir e d . D ong cont ends thats he, l i ke the pet i t i oneri n Shou Y ung G uo, i s fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce a nd, ther efor e, thatthe document s thats uppor t ed the mot i on t o r eopen i n that cas e appl yequal l yher e. H ow ever , the B I A has s i nce a s s es s ed the Shou Y ung G uo d o c u m e n ts a n d d e ter m in e d th a t su c h e v id e n c e d id n o t d e m o n stra te th a t C h in e se n a tio n a ls wo u l d b e p e r s e c u t e d f

o rh a v i n g two U. S . - b o rn c h i l d r e n . M a t t e ro f S - Y- G- , 2 4 I . & N. D ec . 2 4 7 , 2 5 7 -59 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ), ap p ea l do ck eted N o . 0 7 -34 1 5 (2d C ir . A u g . 9 , 2 0 0 7 ). In addi t i on, D ong has nots how n t hatthe B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o cons i derthe document s i n Shou Y ung G uo pr ej udi ced he rcas e. See R om ani s hyn v. A t t orneyG en. of U . S. , 455 F. 3d 175,6

18 5 (3d C i r. 20 06 ) ( al i en m ustshow subst anti al prej ud i ce t o p revai l on du e process cl ai m ) . I n part i cul ar , D ong has nots how n change d ci r cumst ance s w i th r egar d t o the exi s t ence of C hi na’ s one chi l d pol i cyori t s enfor cementbetw een 1996, the t i m e of he r a sy lu m h e a rin g , an d 2 0 0 7 , w h e n sh e f iled h e r m o tio n to re o p e n . T h e B IA c lar if ied in M att erof S- Y - G that“a ne w r eportora new l aw i s notevi dence of cha nged condi t i ons w i thoutconvi nci ng evi dence thatthe pr i orver s i on of the l aw w as di ffe r ent , orw as d if f e re n tlye n f

o rc e d , in s o m e re lev a n t an d m a ter ial w a y .” 2 4 I. & N . at 2 5 7 . D o n g d id notpr ovi de s uch evi dence t o t he B I A i n herm ot i on t o r eopen. D ong al s o ar gues thatherdue pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bythe B I A ’ s deni al of h e r m o tio n to re o p e n b e c a u se th e B IA iss u e d a “ b o ilerp late ” d e c isio n . A lth o u g h th e re is no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o as y l um , al i ens fac i ng r emoval ar e ent i t l ed t o due pr oces s . See S ew ak v . IN S , 90 0 F . 2d 66 7, 67 1 (3d C i r. 19 90 ). In this con t ext, the D ue P rocess C l ause ent i t l es an al i en t o “a f

ul l and fa i rhear i ng and a r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o pr es ent e v id e n c e .” R o m a n ish yn , 4 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 8 5 . H o w e v e r, “d u e p ro c e ss c h a llen g e s to depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs r equi r e an i ni t i al s how i ng of s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. ” K han v. A t t orneyG en. , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i ons o m itte d ). W e do notagr ee thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on w as “boi l erpl at e. ” The B I A expl ai ned thatD ong’ s m ot i on t o r eopen w as deni ed bec aus e i tw as m or e than ei ghty ear s l at e. T he BI A we n to n t o a n a l y z e wh e th e rDo n g q u a l i f i e d f o ra n e x c e p t i o n t o th e s t a tu t o ryt i me7

l i m i tand found thatthe evi dence s he pr offe r ed, i n part i cul arher1999 m arr i age a nd the 2000 bi r th of hers on i n t he U ni t ed St at es , cons t i tut ed a c hange t o herper s onal ci r cumst ance s , r atherthan a c hanged c ountrycondi t i on. T he B I A thus concl uded that D on g h ad n ot m etthe st atutoryrequi rem ents of 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3) (i i ). N on et heles s, even i f the B I A ’ s deci s i on coul d be cons i der ed “boi l erpl at e, ” D ong has notdemonstr at ed p re ju d ic e a n d th e re f

o re s h e h a s n o t s u s ta in e d a d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .