1 07- 268 9- ag Ji an H ui Shao v. M ukase y UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT erm , 2007 ( A r gued: A ugus t6, 2008 D eci ded: O ct ober10, 2008) D ocketN o. 07- 2689- ag
J I AN H U I S HA O , P et i t i on er,

— v . — M IC H A E L B. M UKAS EY , A TTO R NEY G ENE RALOF TH E U NI TED S TAT ES , R e sp o n d e n t.
D ocketN o. 07- 2666- ag
J I W EN S HI , P et i t i on er,

— v .— M IC H A E L B. M UKAS EY , A TTO R NEY G ENE RALOF TH E U NI TED S TAT ES , R e sp o n d e n t.W hen l as tbefor e t hi s court , pet i t i oner ’ s name w as s pel l ed “Shou Y ung G uo. ” See 1 Shou Y ung G uo v. G onzal es , 463 F. 3d 109 ( 2d C i r . 2006)
. H avi ng cons ul t ed w i t h couns el a n d c o n f i r me d t h a tt h e p r e f

e r r e d s p e l l i n g i s t h a tu s e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n n o w b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , we e m p lo y“ S h o w Y u n g G u o ” in th is o p in io n . Pur s uant t o Fed. R
. A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , “M i chae l B
. M ukas ey , A t t orney G ener al of the 2 U ni t ed St at es , ” i s aut om at i cal l ys ubs t i tut ed forf o r m erA t t orneyG ener al A l ber t o R
. G onzal es as nece s s aryi n al l t he cas es deci ded i n t hi s opi ni on. T he C l erk of C our ti s di r ect ed t o amend th e c a p tio n s in th e se c a se s to c o n f o rm to th e a b o v e listin g o f p e tit io n e rs a n d re sp o n d e n t. 2 D ocketN os . 07- 3415- ag ( L ) , 08- 1091- ag ( C on)

S HOW Y UN G G UO , 1 P et i t i on er,

— v . — M IC H A E L B. M UKAS EY , A TTO R NEY G ENE RALOF TH E U NI TED S TAT ES , R e sp o n d e n t. 2 B efor e: R AG GI , W ES L EY , AN D L I VING ST ON , C i rcui tJud ges.

_________________ Pet i t i oner s ar e C hi nes e nat i onal s w ho as s erta fe ar o f futur e per s ecut i on —
s peci fi cal l y , for ced s t er i l i zat i on — i f r emoved t o C hi na bas ed on thei reac h havi ng father ed
orgi ven bi r t h t o m or e t han one chi l d, w hether i n C hi na or i n t he U ni t ed St at es , i n vi ol at i on
o f C h in a ’s p o p u latio n c o n tro l p o licie s lim iti n g a f a m ilyto o n e c h ild
. O n r e m a n d o f th e ir
cas es fr om t hi s court , t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s has n o w issued pr ece dent i al deci s i ons concl udi ng t hatt he s t atut orydefi ni t i on of “r efuge e” c an n o t be cons trued
ca tego ri ca ll y to exc lud e or i n clud e all C h ines e n ati o n als w ith m o re tha n o n e c h il d
. R athe r,3

cas e- by
- cas e r evi ew i s nece s s ary t o det erm i ne w hether an al i en w i t h t w o o r m o re chi l dr en demonstr at es a w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. Pet i t i oner s do notchal l enge the B IA ’s c o n stru c tio n o f th e sta tu te. In ste a d , th e y se e k re v iew o f th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t,
o n a ca se-b y - cas e ana l y s i s of ( 1) t he governm entpol i cyi m pl i cat ed byt he bi r t hs ati s s ue, ( 2) the degr ee t o w hi ch governm entoffi ci al s w oul d v iew the bi r t hs ati s s ue as vi ol at i ve of thatpol i cy , and ( 3) t he enfor cement m eans t hatw oul d appl yt o anyper cei ved vi ol at i on, none
o f th e p e tit io n e rs h a s d e m o n stra ted a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n su f

f icie n t to
s ecur e r el i ef e i t heron di r ectagenc yr evi ew of r emoval pr ocee di ngs ( as s oughtbyJ i an H ui Shao and J i W en Shi ) oron a mot i on t o r eopen thos e pr ocee di ngs ( as s oughtbyShow Y ung G u o ). P e t i t i o n s f

o rRe v i e w D ENI ED .

G a ry J. Y e rm a n , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f or P e titio n e r J ia n H u i S h a o . G aryJ
. Y erm an, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k ( R i char d T ar zi a, B el l e M ead, N ew J e rs e y , on the br i ef

), f or P e titio n e r J i W e n S h i. G a n g Z h o u , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f or Pet i t i onerShow Y ung G uo. T ho m as H
. D up ree, Jr
. , D epu t yA ssi st ant A t t orneyG eneral (A im ee J. Fr eder i cks on and M i chel e Y
. F. Sarko, A t t orney s ; Susa n H ous er , Seni or L i t i g a t i o n Co u n s e l ; a n d M a r y J a n e Ca n d a u x , M i c h e l l e G. L a t o u r , a n d Ca r l H. M c In tyre , A s s is ta n t D ir e c to rs , o n b e h a lf o f Jef fre yS
. B u ch h o lt z a n d G reg o ry G . K a ts a s , A c tin g A s s is ta n t A tto rn e y s G e n e ra l, on the br i ef ) , O ff i ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, U ni t ed St at es D epart m ent of J us t i ce, C i vi l D i vi s i on, W a s h in g to n , D .C ., f

or R e sp o n d e n t.4

R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui t

Judge : I n r es pons e t o r epor t s t hatC hi na w as enfor ci ng i t s “one fami l y , one chi l d” popul at i on
c o n tro l p o licyth ro u g h f

o rc e d ab ort i on s an d f

o rc e d ste riliza tio n s, in 1 9 9 6 , C o n g re ss e x p re ss ly ext ended the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t y A ct ’ s defi ni t i on of a pol i t i cal “r efuge e” t o i ncl ude per s ons w ho had “be en for ced t o abor ta pr egnanc yort o under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on,
orw ho [had] been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e or r efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orforot her
re sis tan c e to a c o e rc iv e p o p u latio n c o n tro l p ro g ra m ,” as w e ll a s p e rso n s w h o h a v e “ a w e ll founded f

ear ” thatt hey“w i l l be for ced t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e ors ubj ectt o per s ecut i on fo rs uc h f

a i l ur e , r e fu s a l , orr e s i s t a nc e . ” 8 U
. S. C. § 11 01 ( a ) ( 42 ) ; s e e K e Zhe n Zha o v . U
. S. D e p ’t o f Ju stic e , 2 6 5 F .3 d 8 3 , 9 1 -9 2 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (d isc u ss in g b a c k g ro u n d to c h a n g e in law ). T h e se th re e p e tit io n s in v o lv e C h in e se n a tio n a ls w h o h a v e n o t cla im e d o r c re d ib ly demonstr at ed thatthe yhad per s onal l yexper i ence d orbeen thr eat ened w i t h anys uch p e rse c u ti o n . N e v e rth e les s, th e ya ss e rt th a t th e ir f e a r o f su c h f u tu re p e rse c u tio n is w e ll founded beca us e t hey have father ed or gi ven bi rt h t o m or e chi l dr en than ar e author i zed unde r C hinese po pu l at i on con t rol po l i ci es. W e add res s these pe t i t i on s i n a si ng l e op i nion bec ause sim ilar w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r c laim s a re n o w p e n d in g in h u n d re d s o f p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew to th is
cour t , and thes e thr ee c as es pr es entus w i t h t he pr ece dent ial r es pons es fr om t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) t o t he comm on ques t i on r ai s ed i n t he di ffe r entcont ext s of thes e ca s es : underw hatci r cumst ance s can a C hi nes e nat i onal r el yon the bi r t h of m or e than one chi l d t o demonstr at e t he w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on nece s s aryt o qual i fyforas y l um5

as a “r efuge e”? See I n r e J
- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. 196 ( B
. I. A
. 2007) ( addr es s i ng i s s ue on di r ectr evi ew w i t h r es pectt o chi l dr en born i n C hi na) ; I n r e J -W -S -, 24 I
. & N
. D ec. 185 ( B
. I
. A
. 2007) ( addr es s i ng i s s ue on di r ectr evi ew w i t h respectt o chi l dr en born i n U ni t ed S tate s); In re S -Y -G -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 2 4 7 (B .I.A . 2 0 0 7 ) (a d d re ss in g is su e o n m o tio n to
re o p e n w ith re s p e c t to o n e c h ild b o rn in C h in a a n d s e c o n d c h ild b o rn in U n ite d S ta te s ). T h e B IA h a s d e te rm in e d th a t th e q u e stio n a d m its n o c a teg o ric a l an sw e r, larg e ly b e c a u se o f

lo c a l v a ria ti o n s in C h in e se o f f icia ls’ u n d e rsta n d in g a n d e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e ir
n ati o n ’s b irth con tr o l po li cies. T h u s, the B o ard h as d ec li n ed to co n stru e the statu toryterm

“ re f u g e e ” to e x c lu d e o r to in c lu d e a ll C h in e se n a tio n a ls w h o h a v e f a th e re d o r g iv e n b irth to
m o re th a n o n e c h il d . R a th e r, ith a s d e ter m in e d th a t a c a se -b y -c a se re v iew is n e c e ss a ryto iden ti fyw h ich C h ines e n ati o n als w ith tw o o r m o re c h il d ren d em o n str ate a fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on t hati s bot h s ubj ect i vel ygenui ne and obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. See J i an X i ng H u a n g v . IN S , 4 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 5 , 1 2 8 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (n o tin g su b jec tiv e a n d o b

jec tiv e c o m p o n e n ts of w el l
- founded fearcl ai m ) ; R amsameachi r e v. A s hcr oft , 357 F. 3d 169, 178 ( 2d C i r . 2004) (sam e). N o part y befor e t he cour t on t hes e pet i t i ons chal l enges t hi s fl exi bl e cons t ruct i on of th e s ta tu te . I ns t ead, eac h pet i t i onerfaul t s the B I A ’ s an aly sis o f t he evi dence i n hi s orher part i cul arcas e, an ana l y s is g en era l l yi nform ed bya thr ee- par ti nqui r y : has pet i t i oner ( 1) i dent i fi ed the governm en tpol i cyi m pl i cat ed byt he bi r t hs ati s s ue, ( 2) es t abl i s hed that governm entoffi ci al s w oul d vi ew t he bi r t hs as a vi ol at i on of the pol i cy , and ( 3) demonstr at edA l t ho ug h w e revi ew t he den i al of S ho w Y un g G uo ’s m oti on t o reope n o nlyfor abu se 3 o f d isc re tio n , se e in f

ra a t [ 57] , our i dent i fi cat i on of subs t ant i al r ecor d evi dence s uppor t i ng the B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs perm i t s us r eadi l y t o concl ude t hatthe age ncy ’ s deci s i on- m aki ng in th is c a s e w a s n o t a rb itr a ry o r c a p ri c io u s . 6 a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hatgovernm ent offi ci al s w oul d enfor ce the pol i cyagai ns tpet i t i oner th ro u g h m e a n s c o n stitu tin g p e rse c u tio n ? B e c a u se w e id e n tifyn o le g a l e r ro r in th is evi dent i aryfr amew or k and bec aus e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs t hat
eac h of the pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o demonstr at e t h at h is orhers t at ed fe ar s of per s ecut i on on
r e tu rn t o Ch i n a we r e o b j e c t i v e l yr e a s o n a b l e , we d e n yth e s e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. 3 I . Backg r ound A l though t he thr ee pe t i t i ons befor e us pr es enta comm on i s s ue, t hey do s o i n di ffe r ent fa ctua l and p roc ed u ral co n texts tha t w e o u tl ine b ri ef lyat th e o u tset : ( 1 ) i n Jian H u i Sh ao ’s
c a se , the B IA revi ew ed ( a) on dir ect app eal (b) an order of r em ov al (c) against a m a le p e t i t i o n e r g e n e r a l l y f

o u n d n o t c r e d i b l e e x c e p t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t ( d ) h e h a d f

a t h e r e d t wo chi l dr en i n C hi na bef

or e fl eei ng t o t he U n it ed St at es ; ( 2) i n J i W en Shi ’ s cas e, the age ncy
re v iew e d (a ) o n d ire c t ap p e a l ( b ) a g ra n t o f re lief f ro m re m o v a l (c ) to a c re d ib le m a le appl i cant( d) w ho had mar r i ed and f ather ed tw o chi l dr en i n the U ni t ed St at es aft erfl eei ng C hi na; and (3) i n Show Y ung G uo’ s cas e, t he age ncycons i der ed ( a) a mot i on t o r eopen ( b) b ya w o m a n p re v io u slyf o u n d n o t c re d ib le e x c e p t f o r th e f a c t th a t (c ) sh e h a d g iv e n b irth to tw o chi l dr en, one i n C hi na and one i n the U ni t ed St at es , butw ho ( d) now offe r ed var i ous d o c u m e n ts f

ro m f a m ilyp lan n in g a u th o rities in h e r n a tiv e p ro v in c e a n d to w n to su p p o rt a
c laim o f c h a n g e d c o u n try c o n d iti o n s g iv in g rise to a f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n b a se d sim p ly7

on the numberof herchi l dr en. T he B I A ’ s i ni t i al rul i ngs deny i ng r el i ef i n eac h cas e pr om pt ed p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew in this co u rt , ea ch o f w h ich re su lt ed in rem an d s, in tw o ca ses b yco u rt order, see Ji an H ui Shao v. B IA , 46 5 F
. 3d 49 7 (2d C i r. 20 06 ); S ho u Y un g G uo v. G on zal es, 46 3 F
. 3d 10 9 (2d C i r. 20 0 6 ), a n d in the case of Ji W en S hi byst i pu l at i on of the part i es. P rel i m i naryt o d i scussi ng t he ch al l eng ed p recedenti al decis i on s prom pted byt hese rem and s,
w e b ri e f ly re c o u n t th e e v e n ts le a d in g to th o s e d e c is io n s . A
. Pr ocee di ngs L eadi ng t o Pr ece dent i al D eci s i ons 1. J i an H ui Shao
a. I ni t i al A gencyPr ocee di ngs I n February2002, J i an H ui Shao, a nat i ve of Fuzhou Ci t yi n C hi na’ s Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, at t empt ed t o ent ert he U ni t ed St at es u n l aw ful l y . I n s ubs equentr emoval pr ocee di ngs , J i an H ui Shao conce ded r emovabi l i t y but appl i ed for as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval under the Imm i gr at i on and N at i onal i t y A ct ( “I N A ”) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101 ets eq. , and forr el i ef unde r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). Jia n H u i S h a o a ss e rte d th a t h e f e a re d f o rc ib le
s t er i l i zat i on i n C hi na bec aus e he ha d father ed tw o daught er s i n t hatcountr yand C hi nes e l aw p ro h ib ited h im , a n o n -a g ric u ltu ra l w o rk e r, f ro m h a v in g m o re th a n o n e c h ild . T o d e m o n stra te th e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is f e a r
— a n d to e x p lain h is a b a n d o n m e n t o f h is w if e in C h in a o n ly
w eeks a ft erdi s cover i ng hers econd pr egnanc y— J i an H ui Shao t es t i fi ed thathe had be en beat en and j ai led byC hi nes e off i ci al s aft erhi s w i fe mi s s ed a gynecol ogi cal exami nat i on i ntended t o en sure her com pli ance w i t h fam i l y planni ng po l i ci es and he refused to dis cl ose8

h e r w h e re a b o u ts . Id e n tify in g v a rio u s in c o n sis ten c ies a n d im p lau sib ili ties in Jia n H u i S h a o ’s a c c o u n t, the i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) found hi m notcr edi bl e i n al l r es pect s butone: t he fac t t hathe
now had t w o chi l dr en i n C hi na. See In r e Ji an H ui Shao, N o. A 79 759 247, at14- 15 ( I m m i g. C t . N
. Y
. C i t yFeb. 27, 2003)
. T he I J deni ed pet i t i onerr el i ef f r om r emoval , a det erm i nat i on
s um m ar i l yuphel d byt he B I A on i ni t i al di r ectr evi ew . See I n r e J i an H ui Shao, N o. A 79 759 2 4 7 (B
. I. A
. Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 ).

b
. P roc ee d ing s in this C o u rt O n J i an H ui Shao’ s i ni t i al pet it ion fo r re v i ew byt hi s cour t , w e conc l uded thatt he agenc y ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence
. See J i an H ui Shao v. B I A , 465 F. 3d at 500- 01. N evert hel es s , w e r emanded t he cas e forfur t heragenc y
c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e q u e stio n “ u n d e r w h a t circ u m sta n c e s, if a n y , h a v in g tw o c h ild re n in C h in a is s u f

f ic ie n t g ro u n d s f

o r a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n .” Id . a t 5 0 1
. I n s o rul i ng, w e n o ted that , i n J i an X i ng H uang v. I N S, thi s courthad “e xpr es s ed sk e p ticism ” a s to w h e th e r a n a lien w ith tw o c h ild re n b o rn in th e U n ited S tate s c o u ld d e m o n stra te a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f o rc e d ste riliza tio n o n re m o v a l to C h in a “ a b se n t sp e c if ic fac t s — bey ond t he gene r al condi t i ons i n C hi na
— gi vi ng r i s e t o hi s s ubj ect i ve fea r . ” J i an H u i S h ao v . B I A , 465 F. 3d at501 ( ci t i ng J i an X i ng H uang v. I N S, 421 F. 3d at12 9 ). Ne v e r th e l e s s , b e c a u s e J i a n Hu i S h a o ’ s c h i l d r e n “ we r e b o r n i n a n d l i v e i n Ch i n a , ” we
cons i der ed the pos s i bi l i t yt hats uch ci r cumst ances m i ghtw arr anta di ffe r entas s es s m entof9

the obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s of pet i t i oner ’ s pr ofes s ed fear
. I d. ( emphasi s added)
. N ot i ng th a tth e I NA’ s d e f

i n i t i o n o f a “ r e f

u g e e ” d i d n o t c l e a r l y r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e a n d th a tth e BI A — the a g en cych arg ed w ith the IN A ’s en fo rce m en t and thu s en ti tl ed to d ef ere n ce w ith reg ard to th e sta tu te’ s in terp re tatio n — h a d n o t p re v io u s ly c o n s id e re d th e p o in t, w e d e c id e d to
re m a n d . S e e id . a t 5 0 1 -0 3 (c itin g C h e v ro n U .S .A
. In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s . D e f. C o u n c il, I n c ., 4 6 7 U
. S
. 8 3 7 (19 8 4 ); S h i L iang L in v
. U
. S
. D ep ’to f Ju sti ce , 4 1 6 F
. 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 9 -91 (2d C ir
. 2005) )
. I n m aki ng t hatdet erm i nat i on, w e not ed the fa r - r eac hi ng i m p li cat i ons of any deci s i on: J i an H ui Shao’ s ci r cumst an ces w er e s har ed by“i nnum er abl e pot ent i al as y l um appl i cant s ” and the gr antof as y l um to all p er s ons w i t h m or e chi l dr en than al l ow ed by C hi n a ’ s f

a mi l yp l a n n i n g p o l i c i e s wou l d r a i s e “ c o mpl i c a t e d ” f o r e i g n a n d p u b l i c pol i cy ques t i ons . I d. at 502. T hus , w e observed t hat “a pr ece dent i al deci s i on bythe B I A — ort he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ” w as des i r abl e t o as s ur e uni form i ty i n s uch ca s es . I d. W e a n ticip a ted th a t th e re m a n d q u e stio n m ig h t n o t ad m it a s in g le a n sw e r a p p lica b le th ro u g h o u t C h in a . W e o b se rv e d th a t th e B IA w a s “ b e tter p re p a re d ” th a n f e d e ra l circ u it
cour t s “t o eval uat e w hetherdi ffe r entr egi ons o f C hi na enf or ce di ver gentfami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es and w hetherappl i cant s fr om di ver s e l ocal es s houl d acc or di ngly rec eive di ffe r ent tr eatm enti n as y l um pr ocee di ngs . ” I d.

2. J i W en Shi
a. O r derof R emoval In Ju ly 1 9 9 2 , J i W e n S h i, a n a tiv e o f C h a n g le C ity in F u jian P ro v in c e , a ttem p ted to10

en ter the U n it ed S tat es un law fu ll y . F ail ing to app ea r fo r h is r em o v al pro ce ed ing s in Ja n u ary 1993, J i W en Shi w as i ni t i al l yor der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a.

b. G r antof R eopeni ng and R el i ef f r om R emoval I n fac t , J i W en Shi rem aine d in t hi s countr yi l l egal l yfors ever al y ear s , m arr y i ng anotherC hi nes e nat i onal i n 1999 and fa t her i ng hi s fi r s tchi l d, a s on, i n 2000. I n M ay2001,
w h ile h is w if

e w a s p re g n a n t w ith th e c o u p le’ s se c o n d so n , Ji W e n S h i m o v e d to re o p e n h is
r emoval pr ocee di n g s , att r i but i ng hi s 1993 abs ence t o gett i ng l os ton t he w ayt o t he i m m i gr at i on court a s t he r es ul tof t aki ng the w r ong bus
. B eca us e the age ncygr ant ed the
m o tio n , w e hav e no reas on t o co nsi der Ji W en S hi’ s ei gh t -y ear del ayi n p rofferi ng th is expl anat i on. W e not e onl y t hat , upon r eopeni ng, J i W en Shi appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng
o f re m o v al, an d C A T reli ef b ase d o n a p u rpo rt ed fe ar that, if h e a n d h is w ife w ere to return t o C hi na, one ort he otherw oul d be for ci bl y s t er i l i zed for havi ng vi ol at ed t he countr y ’ s onechi l d pol i cy . I n addi t i on, J i W en Shi cl ai m ed thathe fe ar ed thathe w oul d be j ai l ed, beat en,
a n d to rt u re d u p o n re tu rn to C h in a b e c a u s e h e h a d le f t th e c o u n tr yw ith o u t a u th o ri z a tio n . Fi ndi ng J i W en Shi t o have t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y , the I J concl uded thatpet it i onerhad
es t abl i s hed thathe had a w el l
- founded f earof bei ng for ci bl y s t er i l i zed on r eturn t o C hi na and gr ant ed hi m as y l um . See I n r e J i W en Shi , N o. A 72 459 654 ( I m m i g. C t . N
. Y
. C i t yM ay16, 2 0 0 3 ).
c. R ever s al of the G r antof R el i ef O n a p p e a l to th e B IA , the g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e d th a t, a s a m a tter o f law , J i W e n S h i d id11

notfi tw i thi n t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on of a “r efuge e” beca us e he had notbeen s ubj ect ed t o any
coer ci ve meas ur es and hi s fea rof futur e mi s t r eatm entw as m er el ys pecul at i ve. I n r ever s i ng the IJ’s g ran t of

re lie f fro m rem o v al, the B IA d id n o t at tem p t t o reso lve th e g o v ern m en t’ s l egal chal l enge c at egor i cal ly
. I ns t ead, focus i ng on t he r ecor d evi dence devel oped i n t he part i cul arcas e, t he B I A rul ed that , even i f J i W en Shi had demonstr at ed a c r edi bl e s ubj ect i ve fea rof futur e st er i l i zat i on, he had fai l ed t o adduce evi dence demonstr at i ng t hatthe fe arw as
o bjecti v el yr eas onabl e. See I n r e J i W en Shi , N o. A 72 459 654 ( B
. I
. A
. Sept
. 14, 2 0 0 4 ). T he B I A part i cul ar l ynot ed the l ack of evi dence of any nat i onal C hi nes e pol i cy r egar di ng t he tre a tm e n t o f

p a re n ts o f f

o re ig n -b o rn c h ild re n . T o th e e x ten t J i W e n S h i atte m p ted to f ill th is gap w i th an af

fi davi tfr om demogra pherJ ohn Shi el ds A i r d i ndi cat i ng t hat per s ons r etur ni ng t o C hi na fr om abr oad w i t h unauthor i zed c hi l dr en ca n “har dl yexpec t ” t o be af for ded l eni ency underthe nat i on’ s one- chi l d pol i cy , t he B I A concl uded t hat t hi s evi dence s how ed onl ythat J i W en Shi m ay fac e “sa nct i ons and penal t i es ” upon r eturn t o C hi na, not t hatthos e pena l t i es
w oul d r i s e t o t he l evel o f p erse cu ti o n. I d. at2. T he B I A fur t herdet erm i ned thatt he pos s i bi l i tyof J i W en Shi and his w ife havi ng anotherchi l d w as t oo s pecul at i ve t o w arr ant
r el i ef f r om r emoval
. See i d. A s t o J i W en S hi ’ s as s ert i on t hat he fear ed i ncar cer at i on i n l i ght
o f h is illeg a l d e p a rtu re f r o m C h in a , the B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t p e tit io n e r h a d f a iled to d e mon s tr a t e t h a ta n y p u n i s h me n t s i mpo s e d wou l d , i n f a c t , a mou n tt o t o r tu r e u n d e rt h e CA T,
o r b e b a s e d o n a n yo f

th e e n u m e ra te d p ro te c te d g ro u n d s u n d e r t h e IN A . S e e id . a t 1 -2
.12 d. St i pul at ed R emand fr om the Pet i t i on forR evi ew J i W en Shi pet i t i oned thi s cour tforr evi ew but , i n J anuary2006, befor e t he ca s e w as hear d, the p arti es st i pul at ed t o a r emand t o al l ow t he B I A ( 1) t o addr es s evi dence
acc om pany i ng t he A i r d aff i davi t , ( 2) t o expl ai n fur t heri t s concl us i on thatJ i W en Shi had not demonstr at ed an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e fe arof for ced s t er i l i zat i on i f re turned t o C hi na, and ( 3) t o cons i derJ i W en Shi ’ s cl ai m i n l i ghtof thi s court ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n J i an X i ng H uang
v . IN S , 4 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 5
.

3. Show Y ung G uo
a. T he A gencyPr ocee di ngs R es ul t i ng i n an O r derof R emoval S h o w Y u n g G u o , an o th e r n a tiv e o f C h a n g le C ityin F u

jian P ro v in c e , atte m p ted to ent erthe U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l yi n O ct ober1992. I n heri ni t i al ai rpor ti nt ervi ew , s he s t at ed that sh e h ad tw o ch il d ren an d fe are d fo rce d steri li za ti o n w ere sh e to re tu rn to C h ina. In M ar ch 1993, how ever , s he appl i ed for as y l um and re l i ef fr om r emoval on t he ground thats he fea r ed for ced st er i l i zat i on i n C hi na base d on hervi ol at i on of thatcountr y ’ s one- chi l d pol i cy beca us e s he had gi ven bi r t h t o one chi l d i n C hi na and w i s hed t o have mor e chi l dr en w i t h her h u s b a n d
. By t h e t i me Sh o w Yun g Guo t e s t i f i e d a t a me r i t s h e a r i n g i n J a n u a r y1996, s he
c o u l d p o i n t t o t h e b i r t h o f a n o t h e r c h i l d i n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s a s f u r t h e rs u p p o r tf

o rh e rc l a i m, and t es t i fi ed s he had a t ot al of thr ee c hi l dr en, one of w hom s he had a dopt ed i n C hi na. F u r th e r , S h o w Yu n g Gu o t e s t i f i e d t o p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n i n Ch i n a i n t h e f o r m o f ma n d a t o r yI UD i m pl ant s , des pi t e adve r s e hea l t h eff ect s , and a for ced a bor t i on and thr eat ened s t er i l i zat i on.13

I dent i f y i n g num er ous i ncons i s t enci es among S how Y ung G uo’ s ai rpor ti nt ervi ew , her asy lum appl i cat i on, and herhear i ng t es t i m ony , and t aki ng not e of he runconvi nci ng demeanor , t he I J found pet i t i onernotcr edi bl e exc eptt o t he ext ents he had de m ons t r at ed that
s he had gi ven bi r t h t o one chi l d i n C hi na and one i n t he U ni t ed St at es . See I n r e Show Y ung G u o , N o . A 7 2 4 6 1 7 1 4 , at 7-9 (Im m ig. C t. N .Y
. C ity J a n . 2 5 , 1 9 9 6 ). F in d in g n o c re d ib le evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on i n C hi na, t he I J concl uded thatShow Y ung G uo had not d em o n str ated a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture f o rce d ste ri liz ati o n o n rem o v al t o that co u n try b e c a u se sh e o f

f e re d n o e v id e n c e th a t th e b irth o f a se c o n d c h ild in th e U n ited S tate s w o u ld be dee m ed a violati o n of C hi nes e pol i cy . See i d. at10- 11. A ccor di ngl y , the I J or der ed
re m o v a l. T he B I A uphel d t hi s rul i ng on di r ectappea l , s ee I n r e Show Y ung G uo, N o. A 72 461 7 1 4 (B
. I. A
. A u g . 2 1 , 1 9 9 7 ), a n d S h o w Yu n g Gu o d i d n o tp e t i t i o n th i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. b. Fi r s tM ot i on t o R eopen In June 1 9 99 , S ho w Y un g G uo m ov ed the B IA t o reope n h er r em ov al proceed i ng s, i ndi cat i ng t hats he w i s hed t o appl y for C A T r el i ef. R ei t er at i ng her cl ai m t hat s he had a t ot al
o f th re e c h ild re n , S h o w Y u n g G u o a ss e rte d th a t h e r p a st e x p e rie n c e s w ith C h in e se f a m ily pl anni ng author i t i es convi nced he rt hats h e w o ul d be for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i f r eturned t o her nat i ve countr y . T he B I A deni ed t he mot i on i n J une 2002, not i ng thatShow Y ung G uo had notchal l enged the age ncy ’ s pr i oradver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, m uch l es s expl ai ned the
r ecor d i ncons i s t enci es i nform i ng t hatdet erm i nat i on. See I n r e Show Y ung G uo, N o. A 7214

4 6 1 7 1 4 (B
. I. A
. Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 ). H er f ail u re c re d ib lyto d em o n str ate p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a
w el l
- founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on t hus not onl y defe at ed her I N A cl ai m s foras y l um and
w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, b u t al so p rec lud ed h er f rom sh o w ing the likeliho o d o f f u ture torture
n e c e s s a ry to s e c u re C A T re lie f. S e e id . a t 2
.

c. Second M ot i on t o R eopen I n Sept e mbe r2 0 0 3 , Sh o w Y u n g Guo a g a i n mov e d t o r e o p e n , th i s t i me c l a i m i ng change d countr ycondi t i ons w it h r es pectt o t he enf or cementof C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol p o l i c i e s a g a i n s tn a t i o n a l s r e tu r n i n g f r o m a b r o a d
. I n s u p p o r t , p e t i t i o n e rp r e s e n t e d t wo document s i s s ued byC hangl e C i t yand Fuji an P r ovi nce f ami l ypl anni ng author i t i es that
r es ponded t o an i nqui r yaboutt he appl i cat i on of popul at i on pol i cyl i m i t s t o an i ndi vi dual named Z heng Yu He, who s e wi f e h a d g i v e n b i r t h t o a s e c o n d c h i l d whi l e t r a v e l i n g i n t he U nit ed S t at es. B oth aut ho ri t i es i nd i cat ed thatpo pu l at i on l i m i t s w ere en f o rc e able agai nst C hi nes e nat i onal s w ho vi ol at ed fa m i l ypl anni ng r egul at i ons w hi l e abr oad unl es s t he nat i onal had ac qui r ed l egal perm anentr es i dence orthr ee y ear s ’ l ega l t empora r yr es i dence i n t he f o r e i g n c o u n t r y. S e e M a y 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O p i n i o n O n S a n c t i o n s A g a i n s tF a m i l yPl anni ng V i ol at i ons , i s s ued byt he C hangl e C i t y F am il y - Pl anni ng A dm i ni s t r at i on ( “2003 C hangl e C i t yA dm i ni s t r at i ve O pi ni on”) ¶ 2; 2003 A dm i ni s t r at i ve D eci s i on on R eques tfor D i r ect i ve fr om Fuzhou C i t y A dm i ni s t r at i on on Fam i l y - Pl anni ng i n C onnect i on w i t h B i r th of
a S e c o n d C h ild b yZ h e n g Y u H e o f C h a n g le C ityM u n icip a l B u re a u o f C o n stru c tio n a n d H is Spouse i n U SA , i s s ued byt he F uj i an Pr ovi nce D epart m entof Fam i l y - Pl anni ngT h e 1 9 9 9 Q & A H a n d b o o k sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: 4 W h a t b irth -c o n tro l m e a su re s a re to b e im p o se d u p o n b irth o f a f irst c h il d / a second chil d p ursuantt o the provinci al fam i l yplanni ng regul at i on s? A : A n I U D i ns er t i on i s m andat ory upon bi r t h of a fi r s t chi l d; s t er i l i zat i on upon bi r t h of a s econd c hi l d. 1999 Q & A H andbook ¶ 16. T he i dent i cal ques t i on and ans w er appea r s i n t he 2005 ver s i on of the handbook. See C hangl e C i tyFam i l y - Pl anni ng I nform ati o n P r om ot i on Q & A for G e n e ra l P u b lic (M a r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ 2 0 0 5 Q & A H a n d b o o k ” ). 15 Ad mi n i s tr a t i o n ( “ 2 0 0 3 F u j i a n Pr o v i n c e Ad mi n i s t r a t i v e De c i s i o n ” ) ¶ 2
. Wh i l e th e s e t wo document s di d notr efe r ence an ypar t i cul arenfor cementm ethod t hatm i ghtappl yi n t he ci r cumst ance s ati s s ue, Show Y ung G uo offe r ed a thi r d documenti ndi cat i ng t hats t er i l i zat i on
w a s “m a n d a to ry ” in C h a n g le C ity u p o n th e b irth o f a se c o n d c h ild
. S e e Q & A f o r C h a n g le C i tyFam i l y - Pl anni ng I nform at i on H andbook ( J ul y1999) ( “1999 Q & A H andbook”) ¶ 16. 4 T he B I A s um m ar i l ydeni ed Show Y ung G uo’ s s econd mot i on t o r eopen, fi ndi ng that th e d o cum ents ati ssue w ere “new ” bu ti nsuff i ci ent t o sho w t he “ch ang ed cir cum st ances”
r equi r ed by t he appl i cabl e r egul at i on. I n r e Show Y ung G uo, N o. A 72 461 714 ( B
. I
. A
. J an. 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 ); s e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 3 )( ii)
.

d
. P roc ee d ing s in this C o u rt O n S h o w Y u n g G u o ’s p e tit io n f o r re v iew o f

th e d e n ials o f

h e r m o tio n s to re o p e n , this
cou rtrul ed thatt he B IA had act ed w i t hin i t s di scr et i on i n d eny i ng the fir stm oti on becau se pet i t i onerhad fa i l ed t o s uppor therpr o p o sed C A T cl ai m w i t h any“addi t i onal evi dence bey ond the s t or ydeemed fal s e i n t he as y lum h ea r i ng. ” Shou Y ung G uo v. G onzal es , 46316

F. 3d at114. A tt he s ame t i m e, how ever , w e i dent i fi ed err ori n the B I A ’ s as s es s m entof the evi dence Show Y ung G uo m ar s hal ed i n s uppor tof hers econd m ot i on. I d. at115. W e not ed fi r s tt hatt he pr offe r ed off i ci al d o cum ent s w er e obvi ous l y“notavai l abl e” a tt he t i m e of pet i t i oner ’ s r emoval hear i ng beca us e t hey al l pos t - dat ed thos e pr ocee di ngs . I d. W e further char act er i zed the document s as “unques t i onabl y ” mat er i al t o the i s s ue of w hethercondi t i ons i n C hi na had c hanged t o expos e r eturni ng C hi nes e nat i onal s w i t h t w o chi l dr en t o for ced
s t er i l i zat i on. I d. C oncl udi ng t hat “[i ] t i s not appar ent t o us t hatthe B I A everr eal l ypai d any at t ent i on t o t he document s , ” w e r emanded t he ca s e t o t he B I A w i t h di r ect i ons “t o cons i der G uo’ s evi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s ” and t o det erm i ne “w hether , i n l i ghtof anys uch
c ir c u m s ta n c e s , s h e c a n e s ta b lis h a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n .” Id
. B
. T he C hal l enged Pr ece dent i al D eci s i ons W i th t hi s backgr ound t o how t he B I A came t o aff or d eac h of thes e thr ee c as es fur ther revi ew , w e sum m ari ze t he ch al l eng ed p recedenti al decis i on s.

1. J i an H ui Shao
a. T he N eed f

orC as e- by
- C as e A nal y s i s t o I denti fyA l i ens W ho D emonstr at e a W el l
- Founded Fear of F utur e Per s ecut i on B as ed o n th e B irth o f

M o re th a n O n e C h ild O n J une 7, 2007, a t hr ee- m ember panel of t he B I A addr es s ed the ques t i on pos ed by this co u rt in it s rem an d o rde r: is “h av ing tw o ch il d ren in C h ina . .
. su ff ici en t gro u n d s fo r a
w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n ”? Jian H u i Sh ao v . B IA , 4 6 5 F
. 3 d at 50 1
. T h e B IA det erm i ned thatt he ques t i on admi t t ed no ca t egor i cal ans w er ; i t coul d be r es ol ved onl yon a17

c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s is
. [A ] n al i en w ho has es t abl i s hed t hat he or s he has had t w o ch il d ren in C hi na m a y q u a l i f

y a s a r e f u g e e i f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d e s t a b l i s h e s , o n a c a s e - b ycas e bas i s , t hat t he bi r t hs vi ol at ed fami l y pl anni ng pol i ci es i n t hatal i en’ s l ocal pr ovi nce, m u n ici pal i t y , orot herl ocal l y - defi ned ar ea, and thatcurr entl ocal fami l ypl anni ng enfor cementeff or t s w oul d gi ve r i s e t o a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on beca us e of the vi ol at i on. I n r e J- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at197- 98 ( emphasi s added)
. T he r es pons e, w hi ch pr es um es an al i en’ s demonstr at i on of a ge nui ne s ubj ect i ve fe arof futur e per s ecut i o n , fo cu ses on t he sh o w in g n e c e ss a ryto d e m o n stra te th a t su c h a f e a r is s u f f ic ie n tlyo b

jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le to
a llo w th e a lie n to c la im re f u g e e s ta tu s . T he B IA con cl ud ed thatt he o bject i ve reasonab l eness of such a fear could be b est det erm i ned byr evi ew i ng t he r ecor d evi dence i n t hr ee s t eps . T he fi r s ts t ep, or“s t art i ng poi nt fo r de term in ing w h ethe r th ere is objecti v e e v iden ce su p p o rt ing this fea r [o f f u ture per s ecut i on, ] i s pr oof of the det ai l s of t he fam i l ypl anni ng pol i cyr el evantt o eac h i ndi vi dual
c a se .” I d . at 1 9 8 . T h e B IA e x p lain e d th a t th is s tep is n e c e ss a ryb e c a u se , “[ a ]lth o u g h in gener al C hi na’ s fami l y pl anni ng pol i cy has been t erm ed a ‘ one chi l d’ pol i cy , ” i d. , “i n pr act i ce i ti s appar entt hat devi at i ons fr om t he gener al rul e of ‘ one chi l d’ per s i s t , ” i d. Forexampl e,

“ c e rt a in g e o g ra p h ic a n d e th n ic f a c to rs ” m a yp ro m p t “e x c e p tio n s to th e ‘o n e c h ild ’ p o lic y .” I d
. a t1 9 9
. T h u s , t h e p e t i t i o n e rf i r s th a d t o “ e s t a b l i s h [ ] t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e s p e c i f

i c ‘ p o l i c y’ appl i cabl e i n hi s orhercas e. ” I d. A tthe s econd s t ep of a nal y s i s , the age ncyw oul d cons i der“w hether the fa cts i n t heW e not e thati n none of the thr ee c as es her e ati s s ue di d t he governm entar gue that 5 pet i t i oner s coul d avoi d futur e per s ecut i on byr el ocat i ng t o anotherr egi on i n C hi na. See 8 C
. F
. R
. § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i ) ( “A n appl i cantdoes nothave a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on if th e a p p li ca n t cou ld av o id p erse cu ti o n b y re lo ca ti n g to an o ther p art of the a p p li ca n t’ s c o u n try. . ., if

u n d e r a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s it w o u ld b e re a so n a b le to e x p e c t th e a p p lica n t to do s o”) ; i d. § 208. 13( b) ( 3) ( i i ) ( pl aci ng t he bur den of pr ovi ng r eas onabl enes s of r el ocat i on on go vernm ent w here “the p ers ecutori s a g ov ernm ent or i s g ov ernm ent- spon sored”); see al so Jin X iu C hen v. U
. S
. D ep’t of Just i ce, 46 8 F. 3d 10 9, 11 1 ( 2d C i r. 20 06 ) (not i ng , in r emandi ng i n l i ghtof Shou Y ung G uo, 463 F. 3d 109, t hat “[r ] eturni ng a per s on t o a partof C h in a w h e re h e o r sh e w ill f a c e a n o f f icia llysa n c tio n e d p o licyo f f o rc e d ste riliza tio n w o u ld appea rt o vi ol at e U ni t ed St at es l aw . . . exce ptw her e the governm enthas m eti t s bur den of 18 r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h t h a tt h e a l i e n v i o l a t e d th e p o l i c y ” a p p l i c a b l e t o h i s c i r c u ms t a n c e s . I d
. By
w ayof i l l ustr at i on, t he B I A not ed thati f, att he fi r s ts t ep, an al i en es t abl i s hed thatno
ex ce p ti o n s to the “o n e c h il d ” p o li cyap p li ed in the p arti cu lar case , th e se co n d step inq u iry
r educe d t o w hethert he al i en had de m ons t r at ed t hat he or s he had, i n fac t , father ed orgi ven bi r th t o “more t han one c hi l d, i n vi ol at i on of thatpol i cy . ” I d. T hi s l at t erbur den coul d be
carr i ed by i ntr od ucing birt h cert i fi cat es o r other do cum ents evidencing t he ch i l dren’s births. S e e id . T h e B IA sp e c if

ica lly n o ted th a t, alth o u g h it i d e n tifie d th e se f irst tw o ste p s o f

a n a ly sis in a cas e i nvol vi ng chi l dr en born i n C hi na, t he i nqui r i es w er e es peci al l yr el evanti n cas es
w her e the al i en s eeki ng r el i ef f r om r emoval r el i ed on the b i r t h of chi l dr en i n the U ni t ed S ta te s . S e e id
. A ssum i ng t ha ta n a l i e n c ou l d s a t i s fythe “ po l i c y ” a nd “ vi ol a t i on ” s t e ps of a na l y s i s,
a th ird ste p re q u ire d h im to “ e sta b lish th a t th e v io latio n o f th e f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licyw o u ld b e p u n ishe d in the loca l area in a w aythat w o u ld g ive ri s e to an o b jecti v e f ea r of fu ture per s ecut i on. ” I d. T he B I A expl ai ned thatt hi s w as nece s s ary beca us e “enf or cement of the 5pr ovi ng thatt he appl i cantcoul d avoi d per s ecut i on by r el ocat i ng t o another r egi on [i n] hi s or

h e r c o u n tr yo f

n a tio n a lity” ). 19 [o n e-c h il d ] po li cyv aries g re a tly” in C h ina, “d ep en d ing o n loca li ty . ” Id
. at 20 0
. T h e B IA f u rth e r no ted th a t w h ile “in c e n tiv e s an d p re ss u re ” w e re u se d to a c h iev e c o m p lian c e w ith bi r th contr ol l i m i t at i ons , i d. at 200, nat i onal pol i cy pr os cr i bed the us e of phy s i cal for ce, i d. at 203. T hus , i t w as an al i en’ s bur den t o adduce s om e evi dence s how i n g “tha t he o r s he personal l yfac es a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on — gener al l y , for ced a bor t i on or ste riliza tio n ,” id . at 2 0 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ), o r e c o n o m ic s a n c tio n s s o “ se v e re ” a s to “ rise to th e lev e l o f

p e rse c u tio n ,” id . at 2 0 0 -0 1 (n o tin g th a t d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e n e c o n o m ic sanct i on s are so severe as t o co nst i tute per secut i on i s i ssue best“add res sed on a case-by -cas e b asis” (c it ing G u an S h an L iao v. U
. S
. D ep ’t o f Jus ti ce , 2 9 3 F
. 3 d 6 1 , 6 7 , 7 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 )))
. H av ing ex p lai n ed it s rea so n ing , the B IA su m m arized its re s p o n se to the re m an d ’s l egal queryas fol l ow s: I n s um , t he ques t i on w hethert he bi r t h of tw o chi l dr en i n C hi na gi ves r i s e t o a w el l
- founded f

earof per s ecut i on depends on the fa ct s of ea ch ca s e, i ncl udi ng, i n par t i cul ar , t he det ai l s of l ocal fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es , pr oof thatan al i en vi ol at ed s uch pol i ci es , and evi dence t hatl ocal enfor cementeff or t s agai ns tthe viol at i on w i l l ri se t o the l evel of persecut i on . E vidence b eari ng on al l of these fac t or s m us t , t aken t ogether , es t abl i s h thata r eas onabl e per s on i n t he r e s p o n d e n t ’ s c i r c u ms t a n c e s wo u l d f e a rp e r s e c u t i o n i f h e r e tu r n e d t o h i s h o me c o u n t r y. Id . a t 2 0 1 (c itin g , in te r a lia , IN S v . C a rd o z a -F o n s e c a , 4 8 0 U .S . 4 2 1 (1 9 8 7 ))
.I n J
- H
- S- , t he B I A not ed thatan al i en’ s abi l i t yt o s at i sfy the “v i ol at i on” pr ong of 6 anal y s i s w as “a pr er equi s i t e t o a fi ndi ng t hatther e i s a ‘ pat t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on’ of per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o” the appl i cant . I n re J
- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at202 n. 4. Si m i l ar l y , i n J
- W
- S- , t he B I A i ndi cat ed thats at i s fa ct i on of the “e nfor cement ” pr ong of an aly sis w as ne ce ssary to dem o n str ate a “p att ern o r p rac ti ce o f p erse cu ti o n . ” In re J-W -S -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . at 1 9 0 . P a ttern -a n d -p ra c tice a n a ly sis a f f o rd s a p e tit io n e r w h o c a n n o t cr e d ib ly d em o n str ate a rea so n ab le po ssibil itythat h e w il l be targ eted as a n ind iv id u a l f o r f u ture p e rse c u ti o n a n a ltern a tiv e m e a n s to d e m o n stra te th a t h is f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n is o b

jec tiv e ly r eas onabl e. See 8 C
. F. R
. § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat appl i cant can m eet bur den for w el l
- founded fe ar of per s ecut i on bydemonstr at i ng a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof per s ecut i on agai ns t hi m s el f as an i ndi vi dual or a pat t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on agai ns tper s ons i n a gr oup t o w hi ch he bel ongs )
. T o t he ext ent t he B I A has i ndi cat ed t hat a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce” of per s ecut i on i s one thati s “s y s t emi c, pervasi v e, o r or gani zed, ” w e have deemed t hat sta n d a rd “ a re a so n a b le o n e ” w h ile at th e sa m e tim e se e k in g c lar if ica tio n f ro m th e B IA a s to h o w th e s t a n d a r d m i g h tb e a p p l i e d r e l i a b l y t o “ p a r t i c u l a ri n s t a n c e s . ” M u f i e d v . M u k a s e y, 508 F. 3d 88, 92- 93 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( internal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( r emandi ng for cl ar i fi cat i on of how “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, or or gani zed” s t andar d m i ght appl y t o cl ai m s by C h ri sti an s in In d o n esia w h o fe are d fu ture p erse cu ti o n ). W e u n d erstan d the th ree -pa rt an aly sis i d en ti fied in the p rec ed en ti al de cisi o n s h ere at is s u e to p rov ide s ati sfa ctory cl ar i fi cat i on of how a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on m i ghtr el i abl ybe i dent i fi ed i n t he 20 b. J i an H ui Shao’ s Fai l ur e t o D emonstr at e an O bj ect i ve Fearof Futur e Per s ecut i on B as ed on the B i r t h of Tw o C hi l dr en i n C hi na A ppl y i ng t hes e pr i nci pl es t o J i an H ui Shao’ s cl ai m , t he B I A det erm i ned thatt he
r ecor d di d notperm i t r el i abl e re s ol ut i on of t he fi r s tt w o s t eps of ana l y s i s . E vi dence i ndi cat ed thatw her e, as i n pet i t i oner ’ s cas e, a co u p le’s fi r s tchi l d i s a gi r l , C hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es s om et i m es perm i t t ed t he coupl e t o have a sec ond chi l d. B eca us e J i an H ui Shao had fai l ed t o t es t i fycr edi bl yas t o the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the bi r t h of hi s s econd c hi l d, t he agenc ycoul d notdet erm i ne w hetherhe had eve r so u g h t suc h perm i s s i on orw hetherl ocal
a u th o r i t i e s w o u l d , i n f

a c t , h a v e v i e w e d h i s w i f e ’ s s e c o n d p r e g n a n c y a s a v i o l a t i o n o f f a m i l yp lann ing p o li cies. S ee id. at2 0 2
. E v en if the “ p o li cy ” a n d “v iolati o n ” step s o f a n aly sis w ere 6c a s e s o f

Ch i n e s e n a t i o n a l s c l a i mi n g a f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n b a s e d o n th e i rh a v i n g t wo o r m o re c h ild re n , w h e th e r b o rn in C h in a o r i n th e U n ite d S ta te s . I n t he chal l enged pr ece dent i al opi ni ons , t he B I A s peci fi cal l yr el i ed on var i ous 7 v e rsio n s o f

tw o re p o rts f

ro m th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t’s B u re a u o f D e m o c ra c y , H u m a n R ig h ts and Labor : one ent i t l ed C hi na: Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and C ount r yC ondi t i ons ( r efe r r ed to h e re in a s “ P ro f

ile” ), an d th e o th e r e n ti tl e d C h in a C o u n tryR e p o rts o n H u m a n R ig h ts Pr act i ces ( r efe r r ed t o her ei n as “C ount r y R epor t ”)
. T o the ext entt hat , att i m es , t hi s opi ni on pr ovi des pi npoi ntci t at i ons t o ver s i ons of thes e document s t hatdi ffe rfr om t hos e found i n t he B I A opi ni ons , t hi s appea r s t o be a r es ul t of pr i nt i ng pagi nat i on di ffe r ence s i n ver s i ons of the s a me r e p o r tb e f

o r e t h e c o u r ta n d t h e BI A. 21 r es ol ved i n J i an H ui Shao’ s favor , how ever , the B I A concl uded t hat hi s cl ai m forr el i ef f ai l ed atthe fi nal “enf

or cement ” s tep o f anal y s i s beca us e the r ecor d di d notcont ai n “per s uas i ve evi dence thatt hi s bi r t h [of a s econ d ch i l d] w oul d tr i ggerenfor cementact i vi t yi n Fuj i an P ro v in c e ” a m o u n tin g to p e rs e c u tio n . Id
. I n r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, t he B I A poi nt ed t o St at e D epar tm en t C ount r yPr ofi l es
r epor t i ng on t he unevennes s and l axi t y of enf or cementof the one- chi l d pol i cyboth i n Fuj i an P rov ince an d in C h ina. Id. at 20 0 , 2 0 2 -03 (cit ing 1 9 9 8 P rof il e a t 2 1 , 2 8 ; 2 0 0 7 P rof

il e ¶ 8 7 ). 7 W hi l e ac know l edgi ng t hat , i n t he St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2006 C oun t r yR epor tforC hi na,
r efe r ence w as m ade t o unat t r i but ed “r epor t s ” of f or ced s te r i l i zat i on i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce,
se e id
. a t 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 (c iti n g 2 0 0 6 C o u n tryR e p o rt § 1 (f )), th e B IA d e c id e d th a t su c h re p o rts
w er e i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s of J i an H ui Shao’ s pr ofes s ed fe ar of s t er i l i zat i on i n l i ghtof evi dence t hat t he us e of for ce w as pr ohi bi t ed byC hi nes e l aw and St at e D epart m enti nt ervi ew s w i t h vi s a appl i cant s fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce i n 2006 “y i el ded ‘ noT h e 2007 Pr ofi l e exce rpt ci t ed by t he B I A acknow l edges evi dence pr es ent ed t o a 8 congr es s i onal s ubcomm i t t ee i n 1998 of “i nvol unt aryabor t i ons and s t er i l i zat i ons ” i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. 2007 P rof

il e ¶ 99. N evert hel es s , the Pr ofi l e not es thatU ni t ed St at es cons ul ar o f f icia ls v isitin g F u

jian m o re re c e n tly“ d id n o t f in d a n y c a se s o f

p h y sic a l f

o rc e e m p lo y e d in co n n ec ti o n w ith ab o rt ion o r steri li za ti o n . ” Id. In th is co n text, the P rof il e o b serv es th at “[ i] n i n t e r v i e w s w i t h v i s a a p p l i c a n t s f r o m F u j i a n , r e p r e s e n t i n g a w i d e c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f s o c i e ty, C ons ul at e G ener al O ffi cer s have f ound thatm anyvi ol at or s of t he one- chi l d pol i cy pai d fi nes b u t f o u n d n o e v id e n c e o f

f o rc e d a b o rt io n o r p ro p e rt yc o n f is c a tio n .” Id
. 22 ev iden ce ’ of

fo rce d ab o rt ion s. ” Id
. at 20 3 (qu o ti n g 2 0 0 7 P rof il e ¶ 9 9 ). 8 A l though t he document s pr om pt i ng r emand i n Shou Y ung G uo v. G onzal es , 463 F. 3d
a t 1 1 3 , se e su p ra a t [ 14- 15] , had notbeen pa r tof the r ec o rd at J ia n H ui Shao’ s r emoval p roc ee d ing s, the B IA n ev ertheless co n side red the p o ssibil itythat this ev iden ce m igh t sup p o rt
an “e n fo rce m en t” find ing fa v o rab le t o p eti tio n e r at th e third step o f a n aly sis. T h e B IA concl uded that i t di d not beca us e, al t hough one documentr efe r ence d m andat orys t er i l i zat i on i n C hangl e C i t yaft ert he bi r t h of a s econd c hi l d, not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat ed thatt he
m a n d a te w a s c a rrie d o u t th ro u g h p ro sc rib e d f o rc e d ste riliza tio n a s o p p o se d to C h in a ’s “ w e lld o c u m e n te d s y s te m o f

o f f e ri n g in c e n tiv e s to o b ta in c o m p lia n c e w i t h b ir th c o n tr o l lim its .” I n r e J
- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at203 ( not i ng t hat“[o] n bal ance, th e ev idence s ugges t s t hat phy s i cal coer cion to achi eve c om pl i ance w i t h fami l ypl anni ng goal s i s uncomm on and
u n sa n c tio n e d b yC h in a ’s n a tio n a l la w s , a n d th a t th e o v e ra ll p o licyis m u c h m o re h e a v ily reli an t on i n ce n ti v es a n d ec o n o m icall y -ba sed p en alt ies”). T h e B IA thu s co n clud ed that, “[ a]s
a w h o le, th e re c o rd lac k s p e rsu a siv e e v id e n c e to p ro v e th a t th e m e re b irth o f tw o c h ild re n in C hi na w oul d t r i gger f

am i l ypl anni ng enfor cementeff or t s t hatw oul d r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on under t he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e. ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , i tdi s m i s s ed J i an H uiT h e B IA d e c isio n in d ica tes th a t th e re c o rd b e f o re th e B o a r d c o n tain e d so m e f o rty 9 d o cu m en ts de ri v ing fro m a v arietyo f so u rc e s: som e p erso n al t o the p eti ti o n er; othe rs 23 S h a o ’s p e tit io n f

o r re lief f ro m re m o v a l, ru lin g th a t h e h a d f a ile d to c a rryh is b u rd e n to d e mo n s tr a t e a we l l
- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n i n Ch i n a b a s e d s i mp l y o n t h e b i r t h o f h i s t wo
c h i l d r e n i n t h a tc o u n t r y.

2. J i W en Shi O n t he s ame dayt hatt he B I A concl uded t hat J i an H ui Shao w as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef fr om r emoval bas ed on hi s havi ng father ed tw o chi l dr en i n C hi na, anotherB I A panel d e t e r mi n e d t h a tJ i We n Sh i was n o t e n t i t l e d t o s u c h r e l i e f b a s e d o n th e b i r t h o f

h i s two chi l dr en i n t he U ni t ed St at es . A s s um i ng t he genui nenes s of J i W en Shi ’ s s ubj ect i ve fe arof for ced s t er i l i zat i on i f r etur ned t o C hina, the B I A i ndi cat ed thatthe det erm i nat i ve ques t i on
w as w hetherpet i t i onerhad “methi s bur den of demonstr at i ng an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e fe ar of per s ecut i on. ” I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at188. A l t hough t he J
- W
- S- panel d id not
s peci fi cal l yr efe r ence t he three -pa rtanal y s i s i dent i fi ed i n J
- H
- S- , i tappea r s t o have concl uded thatJ i W en Shi had ca r r i ed hi s bur den at t he “pol i cy ” and “vi ol at i on” s t eps and, thus , focus ed i t s at t ent i on al m os texcl us i vel yon t he qu esti on of w hetherpet i t i onerhad d e m o n stra ted a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili ty o f e n f o rc e m e n t a m o u n tin g to p e rse c u tio n o n re tu rn to C h in a . I n deci di ng t hi s ques t i on, t he B I A not ed thatboth parti es h ad s ubm i t t ed numer ous document s on r emand pe r t ai ni ng t o C hi na’ s nat i onal “one- chi l d” pol i cy and t he del egat i on of the po l i cy ’s enfo rcem ent fr om t he n at i on al go vernm ent t o p rovi ncial and l ocal au tho r i t i e s. 9p ro d u c e d b yg o v e rn m e n t au th o rities in th e U n ited S tate s, C h in a , a n d o th e r c o u n tries ; an d still

other s r e f l e c t i ng aca demi c and j our nal i s t i c i nqui r yi nt o C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . See I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at186- 88 nn. 1- 3. A m o n g thes e w er e the document s fr om F uji an P rovi nce an d C han gle C i t yprom pti n g o u r r em and i n S ho u Y un g G uo v. G on zal es, 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 0 9
. A l s o n o t e w o r t h y a m o n g t h e d o c u m e n t s b e f o r e t h e B o a r d i s a 2 4 8
- p a g e s tu d y, pr oduced byD r . Susa n G r eenha l g h, Pr ofes s orof A nthr opol ogyatt he U ni ver s i tyof C a lifo rn ia, Irv in e , an d D r. E d w in A . W in c k ler , R e se a rc h A ss o c iate o f th e E a stA sia n In stitu te atC ol um bi a U ni ver s i t y . D i s t r i but ed byth e IN S R es our ce I nform at i on C ent er , thi s s tudy offe r s a det ai l ed di s cus s i on of the bac kgr ound t o and evol ut i on of C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . See Sus an G r eenhal g h & E dw i n A
. W i nckl er , I N S R es . I nfo. C t r . , Per s pect i ve Ser i es : C hi nes e St at e B i r t h Pl an n ing i n the 1990s and B ey ond ( Sept
. 2001) ( “2001 G re e n h a lg h & W in c k ler S tu d y ” ). It o u tli n e s circ u m sta n c e s th a t h a v e p ro m p ted p a rticu lar ly s tr i ctorfl exi bl e enf

or cementatdi ffe r entt i m es , w hether nat i onal l yori n var i ous pr ovi nces o f C h in a . S ig n if

ica n t to th e p e tit io n s h e re a t iss u e , th e stu d y in c lu d e s a ch a p ter d e v o ted to Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. I d. at 127- 61. I ncl uded t her ei n i s a s ubs ect i on en ti tl ed “R ebel l i ous C h an g le, ” w h ich i d en ti fies va ri o u s circu m stan ce s co n tr ibu ti n g to b o th tha t cou n ty ’s “c u ltu re of emi gr at i on” and i t s compar at i vel y“l ax enf or cement ” of f

ami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . I d. at 1 5 8 -6 0 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). A lth o u g h th e stu d y n o tes a lac k o f su f f icie n t d a ta t o r es o lve “a mai n ques t i on i m pl i ci ti n I N S concerns : i s t her e anyr el at i ons hi p betw een s tr ong and w eak bi r t h pr ogr am im p lem en t at i on and hi gherorl ow erl evel s of i l l egal i nt ernat i onal m i gr at i on?, ” the author s offe robs ervat i ons t hatcaut i on agai ns tcat egor i cal con cl usi on s: Fi r s t , i f ther e i s anyconnec t i on , i ti s pr obabl ynotbetw een s ever i t yof e n f o rc e m e n t an d lik e lih o o d o f ill e g a l em ig ra tio n . B irth p lan n in g is w e ll enough ( i
. e. , s t r i ct l yenough) enfor ced i n al l count i es t o pr ovi de ampl e r eas on for em i grat i on on t he p artof an y on e determ in e d t o v i olat e birt h regulat i on s. Second, i f ther e i s any r el at i ons hi p i t m ay be not w i t h enfor cementt hati s s t r i ct butw i t h enfor cement t hat i s r out i nel yl ax butper i odi cal l yi nt ens i fi ed thr ough c a m p a ig n s. V io latin g b irth re g u latio n s a n d v io latin g m ig ra tio n law s a re b o th i l l egal behavi or s t hat evi dent l y fl our i s h i n cert ai n i ndepende nt - entr epr eneur i al p lace s (l ike C h an g le co u n tyn ea r F u zh o u C ity. . . ). Id . a t 1 4 5 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l)
. 24 T o the ext entt hes e document s i ncl uded St at e D epart m ent C ount r y R epor t s and Pr ofi l es , t he B I A t ook admi ni s t r at i ve not i ce of t he more r ece ntver s i ons of t hes e docum ent s i s s ued s i nceI ndeed, no s uch evi dence w as adduce d i n any of t he thr ee c as es thatar e the s ubj ect 10 of thi s opi ni on. T h e B IA too k ad m inistrativ e n o tic e o f th e f ac t th at no fo rce d steri li za ti o n s w ere 11 m ent i oned i n a C anadi an re por t di s cus s i ng C hi nes e nat i onal s r emoved fr om C anada
. See i d. at191 & n. 6 ( ci t i ng R es ear ch D i r ect or at e, I m m i gr at i on & R efuge e B d. of C an. , C hi na: 25 th e p a rties ’ su b m iss io n s. A s in J
- H
- S
- , th e B IA d e ter m in e d th a t th is re c o rd , v iew e d in its ent i r ety , r evea l ed “w i de var ia t i on i n t he mannerand s t r i ctnes s w i t h w hi ch the ‘ one- chi l d’ pol i cyi s enfor ced i n t he var i ous pr ovi nces . ” I d. at189. W hetherJ i W en Shi ’ s cl ai m ed fe ar of per s ecut i on w as cons idere d as t o C hi na gene r al l yorFuj i an Pr ovi nce i n par t i cul ar , t he panel concl uded t hatt he r ecor d di d noti ndi cat e thats uch a f earw as obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. Focus i ng fi r s ton w hether t he evi dence demonstr at ed “thatt he C hi nes e G overnm ent has a nat i onal poli cy o f req u i r i ng for ced s t er i l i zat i on of par ent s w ho r eturn w i t h a s econd chi l d bor n out s i de of Chi na, ” the B I A concl uded thati tdi d not
. I d. at 192. I n s o rul i ng, the B IA d e c id e d to a c c o rd g re a ter w e ig h t to S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts tha n to th e A ird a f f id a v its
re f e re n c e d in th e re m a n d stip u latio n . W h ile the A ird a f f id a v its sta ted th a t C h in e se n a tio n a ls
re tu rn in g w ith m o re th a n o n e c h ild c o u ld e x p e c t to f a c e th e sa m e p u n ish m e n t as th e ir
c o u n trym e n w h o v io late d th e o n e -c h ild p o licy in C h in a , th e B IA o b se rv e d th a t th e a f f id a v its and the att ache d document s on w h ich they r el i ed poi nt ed t o “no i nci dent s of for ced ste r i l i zat i on of par ent s w ho r etur n t o C hi na w i th chi l dr en born abr oad. ” I d. at1 9 0
. It 10 deemed t he omi s s i on s i gni fi cantbeca us e th e S tat e D epart m ent ’ s C hi na Pr ofi l e for2005
s t at ed thatA m er i can di pl om at s i n C hi na w er e unaw ar e of any s uch st er i l i zat i ons . See i d. at 1 9 1 (cit ing 2 0 0 5 P rof

il e a t 24 ). 11P e n a lti e s F a c e d b yC o u p les R e tu rn in g f ro m O v e rse a s w h o a re in V io latio n o f F a m ily P lann ing R eg u lat ion s (20 0 1 -20 0 5 ) (A u g . 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 )). Ji W en S h i d o es n o t o b ject to th e B IA ’s cons i der at i on of thi s documenti n hi s due proc es s chal l enge t o t he B I A ’ s havi ng t aken not i ce o f th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t’s 2 0 0 7 P ro f ile, se e in f

ra a t [ 52- 57]
. 26 E ven ass um i ng i dent i cal penal t i es for popul at i on contr ol vi ol at i ons occurr i ng out s i de and w i thi n C hi na, t he B I A concl uded t hat J i W en Shi had notconvi nci ngl ydemonstr at ed an
o b jecti v elyrea so n ab le fe ar o f f o rce d steri li za ti o n . W h ile n o ti n g that the 2 0 0 6 C o u n try R ep o rtstat ed that the “ ince n ti v es a n d p ressu re ” u sed to ac h ieve co m p li an ce w ith C h ina’s fami l y - pl anni ng pol i ci es “‘ s om et i m es l eft w om en w i t h l i t t l e pr act i cal choi ce butt o under go ab o rt ion o r st eril izati o n , ’” id. a t 1 9 0 , the B IA d ec li n ed to inf er tha t th e re fe ren ce d p ressu re i ncl uded “phy s i cal orm ent al coer ci on” becaus e t he “c ont ext ” fort he quot ed obs ervat i on w as
a d is c u s s io n o f

v a ri o u s “ e c o n o m ic ” re w a rd s a n d p e n a ltie s , id . (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l)
. T he B I A acknow l edged “ i s ol at ed r epor t s of for ced s t er i l i zat i on i n t he document s of
r ecor d. ” I d. at19 0 ; se e also i d. at193 n. 8, 194 ( ci t i ng 2002 C ount r yR epor t§ 1( f) ) ; 2006 C ount ryR epor t § 1( f) )
. N evert hel es s , i t det erm i ned t hati s ol at ed r epor t s w er e i ns uffi ci ent to “ in d ica te th a t th e a p p lica n t w o u ld b e sin g led o u t f o r th is tre a tm e n t u p o n h is re tu rn to C hi na, ” nordi d t heydemonstr at e a “ pat t ern or pr act i ce of per s ecut i on thatw oul d pr ovi de the appl i canta bas i s fora w el l
- founded f ear of per s ecut i on i n C hi na on acc ountof the bi r th of tw o chi l dr en i n t he U ni t ed St at es w hi l e he w as out s i de of C hi na fornear l y15 y ear s . ” I d. at 190. R ather , t he B I A concl uded t hat t he enfor cementact i on thata r eturni ng C hi nes e nat i onal
m i ght r eas onabl y fea r i n s uch ci r cumst ance s cons i s t ed of e conomi c fi nes and pena l t i es . SeeA s t he B I A not ed, t hes e document s w er e s ubm i t t ed i n J i W en S h i’ s cas e as 12 a tta c h m e n ts to o n e o f

th e A ir d a f

f id a v its . S e e In re J -W -S -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . a t 1 9 2
.

27 id . a t 1 9 1 (a n d e v id e n c e c ite d th e re in ). N o tin g th a t Ji W e n S h i h a d n o t ar g u e d th a t h e f a c e d stric ter e n f

o rc e m e n t a c tio n in h is nat i ve Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, t he B I A nevert hel es s cons i der ed thatpos s i bi l i t yi n l i ghtof evi dence p e r t a i n i n g t o t h a t p r o v i n c e a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o Ch a n g l e Ci t y . T h e BI A f o c u s e d f i r s to n t wo d o c u m e n ts th a t w e re a lso in c lu d e d in th e re c o rd in S h o u Y u n g G u o : th e 2 0 0 3 C h a n g le C ity A dm i nis trat i ve O pini on and t he 2 0 0 3 F uji an P rovi nce A dm i nis t rat i ve D eci si on . T hese 12 d o c u m e n ts in d ica ted th a t C h in e se c iti z e n s w h o v io late d th e ir c o u n try ’s p o p u latio n lim its abr oad w er e s ubj ect t o t he s ame puni s hm ent s as ci t i zens w hos e vi ol at i ons occurr ed i n C hi na. N evertheles s, t he B IA ob served t hat “[n]ei t her doc um ent r efer [r e d] t o s t e r i l i zat i on , m uch l ess for ced s t er i l i zat i on, ” as a pos s i bl e puni s hm ent . I d. at192. T o the ext en t p et i t i onerur ged
s uch an i nfer ence fr om an ad di t i onal C hangl e C i t ydocument , r efe r enci ng m andat ed
s t er i l i zat i on aft ert he bi r t h of a s econd c hi l d, s ee Changl e C i t yFam i l yPl anni ng Pol i cy L eadi ng T eam, O pi ni ons i n A dm i ni s t er i ng t he Fami l yPl anni ng Subj e c t s wi t h E ar l yM arr i age and O utof P l an P r egnanc y ( J une 27, 1995) ( “1995 C hangl e C i t yO pi ni on”) , t he B I A w as not per s uaded be caus e “c entr al g o v e rn me ntpol i cypr ohi bi t s phy s i cal coer ci on t o compel per s ons t o s ubm i t t o fami l ypl anni ng enfor cement , ” i d. at193, and no evi dence had bee n adduce d in d ica tin g th a t C h a n g le C ityo f f icia ls n e v e rth e les s “ im p lem e n ted ” th e ste riliza tio n m a n d a te

“ th ro u g h p h y s ic a l f

o rc e o r o th e r m e a n s th a t w o u ld a m o u n t to p e rs e c u tio n ,” id . a t 1 9 2
. A s i n J
- H
- S
- , t h e B I A c i t e d t o S t a t e D e p a r t m e n tr e p o r t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t f a m i l y-T h e sa m e th re e b o a rd m e m b e rs w h o d e c id e d J-H -S - a lso d e c id e d S -Y -G -, w ith b o th 13 decis i on s aut ho red byB oard M em ber D avid B
. H olm es. 28 pl anni ng enfor cement i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w as gener al l y“l ax” a nd “uneve n, ” i d. at193, att he
s ame t i m e thati tacknow l edged t he C ount r yR epor t s ’ r efe r ence s t o “r epor t s ” of f or ced steri li za ti o n o f w o m en in F u ji an P rov ince , id. at1 9 3 n . 8 , 1 9 4 (cit ing 2 0 0 2 C o u n tryR ep o rt § 1 (f ); 2 0 0 6 C o u n try R e p o rt § 1 (f )). A g a in , the B IA a c c o rd e d th e u n sp e c if ied re p o rts littl e
w ei ghti n l i ght of otherevi dence i ndi cat i ng t hatvi s a appl i cant s fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce i n 2006 had m ad e n o m ent i on of for ci bl e abort i ons and thateconomi c pena l t i es w er e the gene r al
m e a n s o f e n f o rc e m e n t. S e e id . a t 1 9 4
. Fi ndi ng t hatt he evi dence “[a ] tm os t. . . s ugges t s t hatt he appl i cantand hi s w i fe may fac e ‘ s anct i ons and pena l t i es ’ upon r eturni ng t o C hi na beca us e of t he bi r t hs of thei rU ni t ed S t at es ci t i zen ch i l dren” n ot “r i s[i ng ] t o the l evel of persecut i on , ” t he B IA determ i ned t hat J i W en Shi had notper s uas i vel ydemonstr at ed that hi s fea rof for ced s t er i l i zat i on w as
o b jecti v elyrea so n ab le. Id. A cc o rdin g ly , the B IA ruled that Ji W en S h i had fa il ed to ca rry h is b u rd e n o f

p ro o f in s e e k in g re lie f

f ro m re m o v a l. 3. Show Y ung G uo O n A u g u st 2, 20 0 7 , tw o m o n ths a fter it s d ec isi o n s in J-H -S - an d J-W -S -, th e B IA i ssued i t s precedenti al op i nion dec l i ning t o r eop en Sh ow Y un g G uo ’s rem ov al proceed i ng s. See I n r e S- Y
- G
- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. 247. I n s o rul i ng, t he B I A cons i der ed not onl ythe thr ee 13 document s r efe r ence d i n t hi s court ’ s r emand or der , but addi t i onal m at er i al s s ubm i t t ed byt he p arti es. S ee id. at 2 4 8 -49 n . 1 (i d en ti fy ing d o cu m en ts)
. T h e B IA fu rth er c o n side red G u o ’s29

ar gum entur gi ng r eopeni ng pendi ng r es ol ut i on of an a s y l ee r el at i ve pet it ion fil ed on her b e h a lf b yh e r h u s b a n d
. A dapt i ng t he evi dent i ary fr amew or k art i cul at ed i n I n r e J
- H
- S- t o a mot i on t o r eopen bas ed on changed countr ycondi t i ons , the B I A s t at ed thatan al i en “mays ucce s s ful l yr eopen h is o r h e r a sy lu m c a se if , o n a c a se -b y -c a se a n a ly sis , the g e n u in e , au th e n tic, a n d o b jec tiv e ly
r eas onabl e evi dence pr oves t hat ( 1) a re l evant change i n countr ycondi t i ons occurr ed, ( 2) t he appl i cant has vi ol at ed fami l y pl anni ng pol i cy as es t abl i s hed i n t hat al i en’ s l o ca l pro v i nce,
m u n ici p ali ty , orot herr el evantar ea, and ( 3) the vi ol at i on w oul d be puni s hed i n a w ayt hat
w oul d gi ve r i s e t o a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on. ” I d. at251 ( footnot e omi t t ed) ( ci t i ng I n r e J
- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. 196)
. M i ndful t hatShow Y ung G uo’ s fai l ur e t o appea l t he 1997 B IA d ism iss a l o f

h e r a sy lu m c laim m e a n t th a t “th e Im m ig r a ti o n Ju d g e ’s c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on r emai n[ed] t he l aw of the ca s e, ” i d. at 250, t he B I A cons t rued the r emand i s s ue
a s lim ited to th e f

o llo w in g q u e stio n : h a d S h o w Y u n g G u o “ p ro d u c e d e n o u g h e v id e n c e to sh o w ch an g ed co u n tryco n d it ion s in C h ina e v iden cing b o th tha t her tw o ch il d ren (a so n b o rn i n 1988 i n C hi na and a daught erborn i n 19 9 5 in the U ni t ed St at es ) w oul d be vi ew ed as
exce edi ng bi r t h contr ol l i m i t s i n her l ocal pr ovi nce, and thatt he s anct i ons appl i cabl e fors uch
a v io la tio n w o u ld ri s e to th e le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n .” Id . a t 2 5 1
. Pr el i m i naryt o r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d evi dence r el evant t o t hi s ques t i on, the B I A not ed ( 1) the l aw ’ s gener al i ncl i nat i on t o v iew m ot i ons t o r eopen w i t h di s favor , s ee i d. at252 ( ci t i ng I N S v. D oher t y , 50 2 U
. S
. 314, 323 ( 1992) ) ; ( 2) the B oar d’ s “br oad di s cr et i on over30

m oti on s t o r eop en, ” i d. ; (3) i t s di si ncli nati on t o ex erci se that di scr et i on favo rabl yi n the case
o f a n a lien , su c h a s p e tit io n e r, “w h o w a s p re v io u slyf o u n d to h a v e o f

f e re d in c re d ib le t es t i m onyt o gai n i m m i gr at i on benef i t s , ” i d. at251; and (4) the m ovant ’ s bur den, i n any
e v e n t, t o “ ‘e sta b lish p rim a f a c ie e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m , i.e., a re a listic c h a n c e th a t [ s]h e w ill be abl e t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t y , ’ ” i d. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) (q u o tin g P o ra d is o v a v . G o n z a le s , 4 2 0 F .3 d 7 0 , 7 8 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ))
. Focus i ng on t he l as tpoi nt , the B I A concl uded thatthe C hangl e C i t yand Fuj i an Pr ovi nce doc um ent s r el at i ng t o Z heng Y u H e di d notconvi nci ngl ydemonstr at e t hatFuj i an author i t i es w oul d vi ew t he bi r t h of S how Y ung G uo’ s s econd chi l d i n t he U ni t ed St at es as a vi ol ati o n o f C h ine s e l aw . Fi r s t , t her e w as a l ongeri nt erval betw een the bi r t hs of Show Y u n g G u o ’s ch il d ren (“m o re tha n 7 y ea rs”) tha n b e tw ee n the b irths o f Z h en g Y u H e’s chi l dr en ( 51⁄2 y ear s ) , a poten ti all yr el evantfac t orbeca us e “pr ovi nci al l aw i ndi cat es t hat
m arr i ed coupl es m ayappl yt o have a s econd c hi l d w i t hi n cert ai n t i m e fr ames thatar e bei ng i ncr eas i ngl yr el axed.” Id. at256 ( ci t i ng 2005 Pr ofi l e at21)
. Fur t her , t he s anct i ons
r efe r ence d i n the C hangl e C i t yand Fuj i an Pr ovi nce doc um ent s w er e t o be l evi ed pur s uant t o a d i r e c t i v e g o v e r n i n g p e n a l t i e s f o rt h o s e who , l i k e Zh e n g Yu He, wer e g o v e r n m ent empl oy ees and C om m uni s tPar t ym ember s . Show Y ung G uo di d notcl ai m t o be ei t her
. See id
. E ven i f thes e document s had al l ow ed Show Y ung G uo t o carr y h er b u rde n att he vi ol at i on s t ep of a nal y s i s , t he B I A concl uded thattheydi d notpr ovi de “a nybas i s ” forO n r emand, t he B I A cons i der ed both t he 1999 and 2005 ve r s i ons of the H andbook, 14 not i ng that t he l at er document di d “not r efl ect any change i n s ubs t ance ” on t he poi ntati s s ue. See I n r e S- Y
- G
- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at257 n. 8. 31 pet i t i oner“fe ar i ng s anct i ons t hatw oul d r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. ” I d. T o t he ext ent thes e docum ent s r efe r ence d “s anct i ons ” gene r al l y , t he B I A det erm i ned thatt he w or d w as
r eas onabl yunder s t ood t o r efe r t o pr es cr i bed “ec onom i c ones , as des cr i pt i ons of thos e types of s anct i ons abound i n publ i s hed r eport s , ” r athert han t o pr os cr i bed for ci bl e ones. I d. ( not i ng thati n J
- H
- S- and J
- W
- S- , t he B IA h ad refer ence d St at e D epart m entr epor t s des cr i bi ng
s anct i ons “as i nvol vi ng j ob l os s an d d em ot i on, l os s of pr om ot i ons , expul s i on fr om t he C o m m u n is t P a rt ya n d a tte n d a n t lo s s o f e m p lo ym e n t, a n d d e s tru c tio n o f p ro p e rt y ” ). T h e B I A r e a c h e d t h e s a me c o n c l u s i o n wi t h r e s p e c tt o th e F u j i a n P r o v i n c e Q & A H an d b o o k
. T h e B IA w as n o t co n v in c ed that the d o cu m en t’ s ref ere n ce to m an d atory 14
s t er i l i zat i ons on t he bi r t h of a s ec o n d chi l d r efl ect ed anychange i n pol i cy . See i d. at257. In a d d iti o n , the B IA o b se rv e d th a t t h e Q & A H a n d b o o k g a v e n o in d ica tio n “ th a t f o rc ib le
s t er i l i zat i ons ar e mandat ed i n F u ji an P rov i nce a ft erthe bi r t h of a s econd c hi l d. ” I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. T he B I A vi ew ed the “di s t i nct i on” as “key ” bec aus e, “underthe
r el evantpor t i ons of the A ct , r efuge e pr ot ect i on ext ends onl yt o i ns t ances of ‘ for ced’
a b o rtio n s o r ste riliza tio n s,” id . (citin g 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 10 1(a)(4 2 )), a n d “ d o c u m e n tatio n o n f a m ily pl anni ng enfor cementi ndi cat es t hateff or t s ar e ai m ed pr i m ar i l yatencour agi ng compl i ance
w i th bi r th l i m i t s t hr ough i ncent i ves , educa t i on, and ot her [non- for ci bl e] m ethods , ” i d. ( ci t i ng P o p u lat ion an d F am il yP lann ing L aw (P
. R
. C
. ) (pro m u lgated b ythe S tand ing C o m m . N at’lIn C a rd o za -F o n sec a, th e S u p rem e C o u rtind icated that the “ w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar” 15 s t andar d m i ghtbe cons t rued t o “i ndi cat e ‘ t hats o l ong as an obj ect i ve s i tuat i on i s es t abl i s hed by the evi dence , i tneed notbe s how n t hatthe s i tuat i on w i l l pr obabl yr es ul ti n per s ecut i on, b u ti ti s e n o u g h t h a tp e r s e c u t i o n i s a r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y . ’ ” 4 8 0 U. S
. a t4 4 0 ( q u o t i n g I NS v. St evi c, 467 U
. S. 407 , 424- 25 ( 1984) )
. T hi s “r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y ” cr i t er i a i s now i ncorpor at ed i n 8 C
. F. R
. § 1208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i ) ( s t at i ng that“appl i canthas a w el l
- founded f ear 32 Peopl e’ s C ong. , D ec. 29, 2001, eff ect i ve Sept
. 1, 2002) , r epr i nt ed i n 2005 Pr ofi l e app. A at 3 8 -46 ). A s i n J
- H
- S- and J
- W
- S- , t he B I A acknow l edged unat t r i but ed r epor t s of occ as i onal f o rc e d ste riliza tio n s. It c o n c lu d e d th a t “ th e m e re m e n tio n o f su c h in c id e n ts, w ith o u t d e tails
a s to w h e n , w h e re , an d h o w o f ten th is o c c u rre d , d o e s n o t, on th is re c o rd , ind ica te th a t itis
w i des pr ead e nough t o fi nd t hat the ap pl i canthas m etherbur den of s ubm i t t i ng s uffi ci ent
e v id e n c e to w a rr a n t r e o p e n in g o f th e p ro c e e d in g s .” Id . a t 2 5 6
. I I . D i s cus s i on A. Re s o l v i n g P e t i t i o n e r s ’ Ar g u me n t s b yRe f e r e n c e t o Th e i rAs y l u m Cl a i ms B efor e di s cus s i ng t he var i ous chal l enges pet i t i oner s r ai s e t o t he B I A ’ s pr ecedent i al deci s i ons i n t hei r cas es , w e not e t hat pet i t i oner s fr ame t hos e ar gum ent s , i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , by r e fe r e nc e t o t h e i rc l a i ms f o ra s y l u m. Th i s ma k e s s e n s e b e c a u s e t o s e c u r e a s y l u m, p e tit io n e rs n e e d d e m o n stra te o n lyth a t th e ir p ro f e ss e d f e a r of f u tu re p e rse c u tio n in C h in a in the form of for ced s t er i l i zat i on i s “w el l founded, ” s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101( a) ( 42) , a l i ght er b u rde n o f p roo f th an sh o w ing that su ch p erse cu ti o n is “m o re l ikely than n o t, ” the stan d ard
nece s s aryt o s ecur e w i t hhol di ng of r emoval or C A T r el i ef. See I N S v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U
. S
. at44 0; accord Y i L on g Y ang v. G on zal es, 47 8 F
. 3d 13 3, 14 1 (2d C i r. 20 07 ); see al so

15of per s ecut i on i f .
. . ( B ) T her e i s a r eas onable p o ssibil it y of s uffe r i ng . . . per s ecut i on” on

a c c o u n t o f

a p ro te c te d g ro u n d o n re m o v a l to n a tiv e c o u n tr y ). 33 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 08
. 16 (b) (2) (pr ov i ding t hat al i en seeki ng w i t hh oldi ng of r em ov al m ustest abli sh thati ti s m or e l i kel yt han nott hathi s l i fe or fr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n hi s countr yof
or i gi n on one of speci fi ed pr ot ect ed gr ounds ) ; i d. § 208. 16( c) ( 2) ( r equi r i ng al i en s eeki ng C A T rel i ef t o s ho w i t i s m ore l i kely t han no tthat he w ou l d b e t ortured on rem ov al ). T hu s, i f the B I A pr oper l yconcl uded thatpet i t i oner s eac h fai l ed t o demonstr at e a w el l
- founded f ear
o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n , itfo ll o w s tha t th ey ca n n o t ca rry the he av ier b u rde n n ec essa ryto se cu re
w i thhol di ng of r emoval orC A T r el i ef. B eca us e w e i dent ify n o errori n the B I A ’ s as y l um
ru lin g , w e n e e d n o t d is c u s s th e s e o th e r f o rm s o f re lie f f ro m re m o v a l. B
. T he U nchal l enged I s s ue of St atut oryI nt erpr et at i on T o se c u re a sy lu m , an a lien m u st de m o n stra te th a t h e q u a lifie s a s a “ re f u g e e ” w ith in t h e me a n i n g o f

t h e I NA b e c a u s e h e h a s s u f f e r e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f “ r a c e,
r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal o p ini on, ” ort hat h e h as a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n o n su ch g rou n d s. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 ). G overnm ent - or der ed for ced a bor t i ons ors t er i l i zat i ons ar e s t atut or i l yr ecogni zed a s pol i t i cal per s ecut i on. See i d. O n t h e s e p e t i t i o n s f

o r r e v i e w, n o p a r t y c h a l l e n g e s t h e BI A’ s d e c i s i o n t o c o n s t rue 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) t o r e c o g n i z e t he p o s s i b i l i t yt h a t , o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e a n a l y s i s , s o me C h ines e n at i onal s w i t h t w o orm or e chi l dr en mi ghtbe abl e t o demonstr at e a w el l
- founded fea rof futur e for ced s t er i l i zat i on bas ed on gener al popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es w i t houtanyT h is c o u rt c ited to th is p a rt o f C a rd o z a -F o n se c a to su p p o rt th e o b se rv a tio n th a t a 16 “s l i ght ” cha nce o f per s ecut i on m ays uppor ta w el l
- founded f ear . D i al l o v. I N S, 232 F. 3d 279, 284 ( 2d C i r . 2000)
. Si nce then, w e have m ade c l eart hat even a s l i ghtchanc e mustbe “di s cerni bl e, ” i d. , byr efe r ence t o “s ol i d” evi dence , J i an X i ng H uang v. I N S, 421 F. 3d at129. T hus , t o demonstr at e t he r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y of per s ecut i on nece s s ary t o a w el l
- founded f e a r, a c la im a n t m u s t p re s e n t “ re lia b le , s p e c if ic , o b je c tiv e s u p p o rt in g e v id e n c e .” Ra ms a me a c h i r e v . As h c r o f t , 3 5 7 F
. 3 d a t1 7 8 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) ; a c c o r d Yi L o n g Y a n g v . G o n z a le s , 4 7 8 F .3 d a t 1 4 0 -4 1
. 34 evi dence of pas t per s ecut i on or t hr eat s of per s ecut i on t o themsel ves as i ndi vi dual s . H avi ng
o u rselve s i dent i fi ed ambi gui t yi n t he s t atut oryl anguage as i tm i ghtappl yi n s uch ci r cumst ances , see J i an H ui Shao v. B I A , 465 F. 3d at501- 02, w e now acc or d C hevr on defe r ence t o t he B I A ’ s s t atut or y cons t ruct i on, w hi ch r ej ect s a ca t egor i cal appl i cat i on of the “w el l
- founded fear ” provi s i on t o s uch cl ai m s i n favor of cas e- by
- cas e re vi ew . See C hevr on U
. S. A
. I nc. v. N atur al R es . D ef. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U
. S. 837. T h e B IA ’s co n stru cti o n fin d s su p p o rt in IN S v . C ard o zo -F o n sec a, 48 0 U
. S
. 4 2 1
. In th a t ca se , the S u p re m e C o u rt in d ica ted th a t a “ re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili ty ” o f p e rse c u tio n c o u ld be suff i ci ent t o s uppor t a w el l
- founded fear , s ee i d. at 440, and ci t ed appr ovi ngl yt o a one- i nten e x a m p le o f

p e rse c u tio n to ill u stra te th e so rt o f “ re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili ty ” th a t w o u ld demonstr at e a “ w el l
- founded f ear , ” s ee i d. ( “‘ L etus . . . pr es um e t hat i t i s know n thati n t he
a p p lica n t’s c o u n tryo f

o rig in e v e r y t e n th a d u lt m a le p e rso n is e ith e r p u t to d e a th o r se n t to
s om e r emot e l abor camp. . . . I n s uch a c as e i tw oul d be onl yt oo appar entt hatany one w ho has m anage d t o es cape fr om t he countr yi n ques t i on w i l l have a “w el l
- founded f ear of bei ng per s ecut ed” upon hi s eventual r etur n. ’ ” ( quot i ng 1 A
. G r ahl
- M ads en, T he St atus of R efuge es in In ter n a tio n a l L a w 1 8 0 (1 9 6 6 ))). A t th e sa m e tim e , h o w e v e r, th e C o u r t d e c lin e d to 1635

att em p t anyfu rth er interp retati o n o f th e w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar st an d ard , o b serv ing that “[ t] h ere i s obvi ous l ys om e ambi gui t yi n a t erm l i ke ‘ w el l
- founded f ear ’ w hi ch ca n onl ybe gi ven
concr et e meani ng t hr ough a pr o ce s s of ca s e- by
- cas e adj udi cat i on. ” I d. at448 ( ci t i ng C h e v ro n in n o tin g th a t, as to “ a n yg a p lef t, i m p licitlyo r e x p licitly , b yC o n g re ss , the c o u rts
m us tr es pectt he i nt erpr et at i on of the age ncyt o w hi ch C ong ress h as del egat ed the resp o n sibil ityfo r ad m inist ering the s tatu toryp rog ram ” (i n terna l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). A ccordi ng l y , w e accep t t he B IA ’s decis i on t o ap plycase- by -cas e revi ew t o C hinese
n ati o nal s ’ cl ai m ed fe ar s of futur e per s ecut i on bas ed on the bi r t hs of tw o orm or e chi l dr en, and we r e v i e w i n tu r n i t s c o n c l u s i o n th a tn o n e o f th e th r e e p e t i t i o n e r s i n th e s e c as es
c o n v in c in g ly d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e irp ro f e s s e d f e a rs w e re w e ll f

o u n d e d
. C
. T h e C h a llen g e d C o n c lu sio n s th a t N o P e tit io n e r D e m o n stra ted a n O b jec tiv e ly R eas onabl e Fearof Futur e Per s ecut i on E a c h p e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t h e o r sh e h a d f a iled to demonstr at e an obj ect i vel y r eas onabl e fea r of futur e for ced s t er i l i zat i on i f r emoved t o C hi na. T o th e e x ten t p e tit io n e rs c h a llen g e th e B o a rd ’s a ss e ss m e n t o f c o m p e tin g e v id e n c e a n d its ul t i m at e find ings of

fac t , ourr evi ew i s nece s s ar i l ydefe r ent i al
. “[W ] e w i l l notdi s turb a fac tual fi ndi ng i f i ti s s uppor t ed by ‘ r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve’ evi dence i n t he
rec o rd w h en co n side red as a w h o le. ” W u B iao C h en v . IN S , 3 4 4 F
. 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 5 (2 d C ir
. 20 03 ) ( qu ot i ng D i a l l o v. I N S, 23 2 F. 3d 27 9, 28 7 ( 2d Ci r . 20 00 ) ) ; a c c or d M a nz urv. U
. S. D ep’ tof H om el and Sec. , 494 F. 3d 281, 289 ( 2d C i r . 2007)
. I ndeed, C ongr es s has s peci fi ed th a t “a d m in istra tiv e f

in d in g s o f f

a c t ar e c o n c lu siv e u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld36

be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” 8 U
. S. C
. § 125 2 (b)( 4) ( B )
. T hus , w hen a pet i t i onerbear s t he bur den of pr oof, hi s fai l ur e t o adduce evi dence can i t s el f cons t i tut e the

“ su b sta n tial e v id e n c e ” n e c e ss a ryto su p p o rt th e a g e n c y ’s c h a llen g e d d e c isio n . S e e g e n e ra lly Z h o u Y u n Z h a n g v . IN S , 3 8 6 F .3 d 6 6 , 7 8 -7 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (h o ld in g th a t ad v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on byi t s el f

c a n “ c o n s t i tu t e s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe conc l us i on t hat[the pet i t i oner ] fai l ed t o carr y hi s bur den of pr oof on hi s per s ecut i on cl ai m , ” i n abs ence of other
co rrob o rati v e e v iden ce ), o v erru led in p art o n o ther g rou n d s b y S h i L iang L in v
. U
. S
. D ep ’t of J us t i ce, 494 F. 3d 296 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( en banc)
. M or eover , w hen a pe t i t i onerchal l enges “the fa ctua l fin d ing s u n d erly ing the i m m igrati o n co u rt ’s d eterm ination that [th e p eti ti o n er] has fai l ed t o s at i s fyhi s bur den of pr oof” on t he i s s ue of pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l
- founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on, w e w i l l not di s turb the B I A ’ s rul i ng unl es s w e conc l ude that“no
r eas onabl e fa ct - fi nderco u ld have f ai l ed t o fi nd” i n favorof pet i t i oner . W u B i ao C hen v. I N S, 344 F. 3d at275 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. T hatconcl us i on i s notw arr ant ed i n anyof the thr ee c as es ati s s ue.

1. J i an H ui Shao I n pet i t i oni ng t hi s cour tfor r evi ew of t he B I A ’ s pr ece dent i al deci s i on i n hi s cas e, J i an H ui Sha o c h a l l e n g e s n e i t h e rt h e a g e n c y ’ s r e s p o n s e t o t h e s t a tu t o r yi n t e rp r e t a t i o n q u e s t i on pos ed on r emand byt hi s court , nort he thr ee- s t ep ev ide nt i aryfr amew or k i dent i fi ed byt he B I A as us eful t o det erm i ni ng w hen a c l ai m ed fe arof futur e s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi naT o t he ext ent Show Y ung G uo r ai s es s uch a c hal l enge i n the cont extof herm ot i on 17 to re o p e n , w e e x p lain in f ra a t [ 60- 61] w hyw e rej ectthe argu m ent on i t s m eri t s. A lth o u g h Ji W e n S h i p re ss e s su c h a c h a llen g e , fo r re a so n s s tate d in f ra a t [ 44- 46] , 18 w e conc l ude thatt he ar gum enthas notbeen pr es erved. 37 i s w el l fou nd ed
. F u rth er, peti t i on er r ai ses no obj ect i on t o the B IA (as op po sed t o an IJ ) 17

w ei ghi ng t he r ecor d evi dence o r m ak i ng fac tual det erm i nat i ons i n hi s cas e. I ns t ead, t he 18 sin g u lar f

o c u s o f Jia n H u i S h a o ’s p e tit io n is f a c tu a l. P e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in fi ndi ng t hathe fa i l ed t o demonstr at e per s uas i vel y t hat ( 1) hi s s econd chi l d’ s bi r t h w oul d be vi ew ed as a vi ol at i on of fa m i l ypl anni ng r egul at i ons i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, s ee J i an H ui Shao B r . at 1, and (2) he “w oul d fac e a r eas onabl e poss i bi l i t y of per s ecut i on i f re m oved, ” i d. at8. B ec au s e w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs and thatthe
r e c o r d d o e s n o tc o mpe l c o n t r a r yd e t e r mi n a t i o n s , we r e j e c tJ i a n Hui Sh a o ’ s c h a l l e n g e as
w ith o u t m e rit.
a. Pet i t i oner ’s F ai l ur e t o A dduce Cre di bl e Evi dence as t o t he C i r cumst ance s of H i s W i fe’ s Second P regna ncySuppor t s t he B I A ’s F indi ng t hatH e Fai l ed t o C arr yH i s B ur den att he V io latio n S tep o f

A n a ly sis P eti ti o n er su b m it s tha t, at th e violati o n step o f a n aly sis, the B IA erred in n o ti n g rec o rd
ev iden ce o f v ariou s ex ce p ti o n s to C h ina’s on e-c h il d p o li cyw ith o u t m ak ing fu rth er inq u iry t o det erm i ne i f J i an H ui Shao qual i fi ed foranyof thes e exc ept i ons . W e ar e notper s uaded. T h e a rg u m e n t ig n o re s th e v e ryp o in t m a d e b yth e B IA : th e b u rd e n w a s o n Jia n H u i S h a o to d e m o n stra te th a t C h in e se o f f icia ls w o u ld v iew h is w if e ’s s e c o n d p re g n a n c ya f ter th e b irth of t hei r fi r s t daught er as a vi ol at i on of fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . R ecor d evi dence s how ed that38

s econd pr egnanc i es m i ght be author i zed i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w hen a c oupl e’ s fi r s tchi l d w as a g ir l. S ee In re J-H -S -, 2 4 I. & N
. D ec . at 1 9 8 -99 , 2 0 2 (cit ing 2 0 0 5 C o u n try R ep o rt§ 1 (f), 2005 Pr ofi l e at49, and 1998 Pr ofi le a t 2 5 ). B ec aus e J i an H ui Shao had fa i l ed t o t es t i fy
cr edi bl yas t o t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng hi s w i fe’ s s econd pr egnanc y , t he B I A coul d not
r el i abl ydet erm i ne w hetherpet i t i onerhad s oughtorbeen gr ant ed s uch author i zat i on, a fa ct
r el evantt o det erm i ni ng w hethergovernm entoffi ci al s w oul d v iew the b irt h of hi s s econd d a u g h ter a s a v io latio n o f C h in e se f a m ily p lan n in g p o licie s. W h e re a p e tit io n e r th u s f a ils to
a d d u c e “ r e l i a b l e , s p e c i f i c , o b j e c t i v e ” e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e “ c o n t e x ta n d b e l i e v a b i l i ty”
o f h is c laim e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n , w e c a n h a rd lyc o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA w a s c o m p e lled to
r es ol ve t he poi nt i n hi s favor
. R amsameachi r e v. A s hcr oft , 357 F. 3d at178; acc or d Y i L ong Y ang v. G onzal ez, 478 F. 3d at 140- 41; s ee al s o J i an X i ng H uang v. I N S, 421 F. 3d at128- 29 ( hol di ng thatB I A di d not err i n fi ndi ng t hatpet i t i onerfai l ed t o carr ybur den of de m ons t r at i ng
w el l
- founded f

earof for ced s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi na bas ed on bi r t hs of tw o chi l dr en i n U ni t ed St at es , t he fi r s t bei ng a gi r l , beca us e i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, “a s econd c hi l d i s oft en per m i t t ed i f t h e f

i r s tc h i l d i s a g i r l ” a n d “ t h e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t[ p e t i t i o n e r ] wou l d be
s u b je c t to f o rc e d s te ri liz a tio n f

o r h a v in g a s e c o n d c h ild ” ). b. A tt he Enfor cementSt ep of A nal y s i s , Substan ti al E vi dence S u p p o rts th e B IA ’s F in d in g th a t P e tit io n e r F a iled to D emonstr at e a R eas onabl e Poss i bi l i t y of For ced St er i l i zat i on on R emoval t o C hi na A tthe enf

or cements t ep of a nal y s i s , J i an H ui Shao faul t s the B IA ’s f ind ing thathe fai l ed t o demons tr ate a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof for ced s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi na.W e d isc u ss in f ra a t [ 52- 57] J i W en S hi ’ s obj ect i on t o t he B I A t aki ng j udi ci al not i ce 19 of the 2007 Pr ofi l e i n hi s cas e. B eca us e J i an H ui Shao and Show Y ung G uo r ai s ed no s uch obj ect i on i n thei r pet i t i on s, w e deem the argu m ent w ai ved as t o these pet i t i on ers . 39 W e di s agr ee. T he B I A acknow l edged t he evi dence m os t favor abl e t o pet i t i oneron t he i s s ue of enf or cement , s peci fi cal l y , s t at ement s i n the 2006 C ount r yR epor t( a) i ndi cat i ng t hat
m ethods for enfor ci ng C hi na’ s bi r t h l i m i t s “s om et i m es l eftw om en w i t h l i t t l e pr act i cal choi ce butt o under go abort i on ors t er i l i zat i on, ” I n r e J
- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at200, and ( b) acknow l edgi ng “r eport s ” of s om e w om en’ s “for ced s t er i l i zat i on, ” i d. at202; s ee 2006 C ount ryR epor t§ 1( f)
. I tpr ocee ded t o expl ai n by r efe r ence t o s ubs t ant i al r ecor d evi dence
w hyi tw as notper s uaded thatJ i an H ui Shao fac ed a reas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof s uch p e rs e c u tio n if

re m o v e d to C h in a . T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t c o m p e l a c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n . T h e B IA ex p lai n ed that itd ec li n ed to inf er a rea so n ab le po ssibil ityo f p etiti o n er’s fo r c e d s t e r i l i z a t i on fr om t he a bo ve - qu ot e d f i r s ts t a t e mentbe c a us e i t s “ c on t e xt ” w as a d isc u ss io n o f

th e v a rio u s e c o n o m ic r e w a r d s a n d p e n a lti e s u se d b yC h in e se a u th o rities to
s ecur e compl i ance w i t h popul at i on l i m i t s . I d. at 200. T he B I A obs erved thati t s cons t ruct i on of the s t at ementfound furt hers uppor ti n t he St at e D epa rt m en t ’ s 2007 Pr ofi l e forC hi na, 19

w h ich , w h ile a c k n o w led g in g th a t “ ‘p u b lic an d o th e r p re ss u re ’ is u se d in F u jian P ro v in c e to
e n c o u ra g e c o m p lian c e w ith b irth p lan n in g law s,” sp e c if ica llyn o ted th a t A m e ric a n o f f icia ls in th e p ro v in c e “ ‘d id n o t f in d a n yc a se s o f

p h y sic a l f

o rc e e m p lo y e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith
a b o rt io n o r s te ri liz a tio n .’” Id . (q u o tin g 2 0 0 7 P ro f ile ¶ 9 9 ). I n decl i ni ng t o i nfer a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof pet i t i oner ’ s for ced s t er i l i zat i on fr om40

u n sp e c if ied “ re p o rts” o f

su c h o c c a sio n a l ab u se , the B IA re li e d o n e v id e n c e in S tate D epart m entr epor t s i ndi cat i ng that( 1) the us e of phy s i cal coer ci on t o enfor ce f ami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es w as , i n fac t , offi ci al l y pr os cr i bed i n C hi na, i d. at 202; s ee 2007 Prof i l e ¶ 91; ( 2) t he enfor cementof fa m i l y p lann ing pol i ci es i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w as gener al l y“l ax” a nd “uneve n, ” I n r e J
- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at 202 ( quot i ng 1998 Pr ofi l e at21, 26) ; and ( 3) 2006 vi s a appl i cat i ons fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce “ y i el ded ‘ no evi dence ’ of for ced a bor t i ons , ” s ee i d. at203 ( quot i ng 2007 Pr ofi l e ¶ 99)
. I n J i an X i ng H uang v. I N S, w e rul ed thatthe B I A w as “ent i t l ed t o r el y ” on St at e D epart m entr epor t s of countr ycondi t i ons p rov ided i t“di d not
over l ook anycontr adi ct or yevi dence di r ect l ypr es ent ed by t he pet i t i oner . ” 421 F
. 3d at129. W hi l e J i a n Hui Sh a o d o e s n o t c h a r g e t h e BI A wi t h o v e r l o o k i n g a n y r e l e v a n t e v i d e n ce, he
neverthel es s r ai s es var i ous chal l enges to the w ei ghtthe B oar d as s i gned the compet i ng
e v id e n c e . Fi r s t , he as s er t s t hatt he B I A coul d notr el yon om i s s i ons in the vi s a appl i cat i ons
w i thoutexpl ai ni ng w hyt hes e document s cons t i tut ed pr obat i ve evi dence on t he i s s ue of fo rce d steril iz ati o n . T h e p o int i s w ith o u t m erit , p arti cu larl yin li g h t of the g o v ern m en t’ s unchal l enged a s s er t i on t hat , beca us e vi s a appl i cant s ar e as ked t o s t at e al l gr ounds on w hi ch theys eek e nt r yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es , i t w oul d be r eas onabl e t o expec tt hat , i f for ci bl e means

— a b o rtio n s o r ste riliza tio n — w e re b e in g u se d b ylo c a l au th o rities to e n f o rc e f a m ily pl anni ng pol i ci es , appl i cant s for l egal entr y i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es w oul d have as m uch of a n i ncent i ve t o r epor ts uch ac t s of per s ecut i on, or t hei r fea rther eof, as C hi nes e nat i onal s w hoT o t he ext entt he vi ct i m s of the r epor t ed for ced s t er i l i zat i ons w er e w o m en, s ee 20 2006 C ount r yR epor t§ 1(f) , w e not e thatJ i an H ui Shao offe r ed no evi dence of r eport ed for ced s t er i l i zat i ons of m en. See gener al l y 2001 G r eenha l gh & W i nckl er Study at99- 100, tbl
. 6. 2 ( not i ng i r onyt hat“s o m anyof the as y l um appl i cant s cl ai m i ng per s ecut i on underthe one- chi l d pol i cyar e mal e, ” w hi l e phy s i cal bur dens as s oci at ed w it h p o li cy compl i ance — aborti o n s an d the vas tm aj or i t yof s t er i l i zat i ons — ar e borne byw om en)
. I ndeed, ator al a r g u m e n t , p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c o u n s e l a d m i t t e d t h a tJ i a n H u i S h a o ’ s w i f e , p r e s u m a b l y a s l i k e l y a targe t fo r fo rce d steri li za ti o n as pe ti ti o n er, w as no t steri li ze d af ter the birth o f th e c o u p le’s s econd chi l d. R ecogni zi ng t hat t he fac t underm i ned t he obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s of J i an H ui S h ao ’s claim that h is fea r o f steri li za ti o n w as w ell fo u n d ed , co u n sel asse rt ed that p eti ti o n er’s w ife (w it h t w o chi l dr en) had managed t o l i ve i n hi di ng fr om governm entauthor i t i es s i nce h e r h u s b a n d ’s 2 0 0 2 d e p a rt u re f ro m C h in a . 41 ent er ed thi s countr y i l l egal l y . Pr es ent ed w i t h unat t r i but ed “r epor t s ” of for ced st eri l i zat i on th a t lac k e d a n y sp e c if

icity a s to n u m b e r o r c irc u m sta n c e , th e B IA a c ted w e ll w ith in its f a c tfi nd i ng dis cret io n in con si deri ng w hetheranyotherevidence, i ncludi ng vis a app l i cat i on s, sh e d lig h t o n th e re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili tyo f p e tit io n e r f

a c in g su c h p e rse c u tio n o n re m o v a l to C h in a . T o th e e x ten t o th e r e v id e n c e f a iled to su p p o r t th a t p o s s ib ili ty , the B IA re a so n a b ly d e ter m in e d th a t th e u n a ttribu ted “ re p o rts” d id n o t, b yth e m se lv e s, p e rsu a siv e lyd e m o n stra te
a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hatJ i an H ui Shao w oul d fac e s uch futur e p ers ecut i on. See R amsameachi r e v. A s hcr oft , 357 F. 3d at178 ( not i ng need for “r el i abl e, s peci fi c, obj ect i ve” evi dence t o demonstr at e obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e fe arof futur e p e r s e c u t i o n ) ( i n t e rn a l quot at i on
m arks om i t t ed) ; acc or d Y i L ong Y ang v. G onzal ez, 478 F. 3d at140- 41; s ee a l s o J i an X i ng H uang v. I N S, 421 F. 3d at 129 ( emphasi zi ng need for “s ol i d” evi dence t o demonstr at e that p ro f e s s e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n w a s o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le a n d n o t m e re ly “ s p e c u la tiv e ” ). W e cannotconcl ude thatt he r eport s compel l ed a c ontr aryfi ndi ng. 20 J i an H ui Shao’ s s econd ar gum ent faul t s t he B I A for r el y i ng on an out dat ed s t at ementI n a r ece nt pr ece dent i al deci s i on, t he B I A rul ed thateconomi c pena l t i es qual i fi ed 21 a s p e rse c u tio n if t h e h a r m e x a c t e d “ s e v e r e e c o n o mi c d i s a d v a n t a g e , ” I n r e T
- Z
- , 2 4 I
. & N. D ec. 163, 173 ( B
. I
. A
. 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , butno t e dthat“[g] overnm ent sa n c tio n s th a t re d u c e a n [ a lien ] to a n im p o v e rish e d e x iste n c e ,” s u c h a s a “ p a r ti c u la rly oner ous fi ne, a l ar ge- s cal e confi s cat i on of pr oper t y , ora s w eepi ng l i m i t at i on of oppor tuni t i es t o cont i nue t o w or k i n an es t abl i s hed pr ofes s i on or bus i nes s , ” may“amountt o per s ecut i on e v e n if th e v ic tim re ta in s th e a b ility to a f f o rd th e b a re e s s e n tia ls o f lif e ,” id . a t 1 7 4
. 42 i n t he 1998 Pr ofi l e t o s uppor t a conc l us i on t hatFuj i an Pr ovi nce’ s enfor cementpr ocedur es are general l y“l ax” an d “u nev e n . ” T he p ointm eri t s l i t t l e dis cussi on becau se the B IA al so ci t ed the 2007 Pr ofi l e, w hi ch r ei t era tes the “uneve n” enf or cementchar act er i zat i on. See 20 07 P rofi l e ¶ 87
. In an y e v e n t, Jia n H ui Shao po i nts t o n o co ntr aryevidence, m uch l ess
e v id e n c e o f

f o rc e d s te ri liz a tio n s to p e rs o n s s im ila rl ys itu a te d to h im s e lf
. Fi nal l y , J i an H ui Shao s ubm i t s t hatt he B I A err ed i n as s es s i ng hi s fea rof for ced
s t er i l i zat i on byr efe r ence onl yt o pos s i bl e phy s i cal coer ci on w i thoutcons i der i ng t he pos s i bi l i tyt hat“[s ] ever e ec onom i c pr es s ur es ” m i ght be appl i ed t o t he s ame e ffe ct . J i an H ui S h a o B r. at 9 -1 0 . T h e a rg u m e n t m isc h a r a c te riz e s th e B IA ’s d e c isio n , w h ich e x p licitly acknow l edges t hats ever e ec onom i c pena l t i es m i ght s erve as a bas i s for a w el l
- founded f ear
o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n , b u t fin d s n o ev iden ce o f pe n alt ies ri sing to th at leve l. S ee In re J-H -S -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . at 2 0 0 (n o ti n g th a t “[ e ]n f o rc e m e n t ef

f o rts re su lti n g in m o d e ra te e c o n o m ic i m pactw oul d not , i n gener al , pr ove a w el l
- founded f ear o f fut ur e per s ecut i on”)
. T o t he 21 ext entJ i an H ui Shao poi nt s us t o t he 2006 C ount r y R epor t as evi dence t hatC hi na has us ed economi c penal t i es t o put “pr es s ur es on coupl es w i t h t w o or m or e chi l dr en” thathave “ oft en

‘ l eft[them] w i t h l i t t l e pr act i cal choi ce butt o under go abor t i on o rs t er i l i zat i on, ’ ” J i an H uiA s not ed s upr a not e 20, pet i t i onerhas notal l eged thatphy s i cal oreconomi c means 22 w er e us e d t o c o mpe l h i s wi f e t o s u b mi t t o s t e r i l i z a t i o n a s a r e s u l t o f t h e b i r t h of a s econd c h ild
. C er t ai nl y , none of t he pet i t i oner s i n t hes e thr ee c as es at t empt ed t o demonstr at e that

23 th e ir f e a rs w e re w e ll f

o u n d e d b y p o in tin g to a n y e v id e n c e o f th e sta tistica l f r e q u e n c y w ith w hi c h f or c e d a bo r t i on s oc c urr e d i n r e l e va nta r e a s . C f. IN S v. Car do z a - Fon s e c a , 48 0 U. S. at431 ( ci t i ng appr o v ing ly to one- i n- t en fr equenc yas s uffi ci ents uppor tforw el l
- founded f e a r)
. 43 Shao B r . at10 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng 2006 C ount r yR epor t§ 1 (f)) , w e ar e not per s uaded t hatt hi s s t at ementcons t i tut ed “r el i abl e, s peci fi c, obj ect i ve” e vi dence compel l i ng the w el l
- founded f

ear fi ndi ng ur ged by pet i t i oner , R amsameachi r e v. A s hcr oft , 357 F. 3d at 1 7 8
. Fi r s t , t he s t at ement , as i tappe ars in the C ount r yR epor t , i dent i fi es “w om en, ” not “c o u p les, ” a s the p erso n s w h o fa ce the n o ted p rac ti ca l dil em m a. 20 0 6 C o u n tryR ep o rt § 1( f)
. Second, t he C ount r yR epor ts t at es thatthe pr obl em ar i s es “s om et i m es. ” Id. J i an

22 H ui Shao offe r ed no evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat“s om et i m es ” ar os e w i t h s uffi ci entfr equenc y to e sta b lish a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili tyo f e c o n o m ic p re ss u re s b e in g u se d to c o m p e l h is ste riliza tio n o n re tu rn to C h in a . S e e IN S v . C a rd o z a -F o n se c a , 4 8 0 U .S . at 4 3 1
. F in a lly , to 23 the ext ent i t i s “for ced” s t er i l i zat i ons t hat ar e re cogni zed as a for m of pol i t i cal per s ecut i on, 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101( a) ( 42) , i t i s har dl y appar ent t hatt he “pr es s ur es ” gi vi ng r i s e t o the r epor t ed d ilem m a w o u ld f

o rc e p e rso n s g e n e ra lly , o r Jia n H u i S h a o in p a r ti c u la r, to su b m it t o
s t eril izati o n . See 2006 C ount r yR epor t§ 1( f) ( det ai l i ng penal t i es “s uch as j ob l os s or demot i on, l os s of pr om ot i on oppor tuni t y , expul s i on fr om the part y( m emb ershi p i n w hi ch44

w as an un off

icia l requ i rem ent for cert ai n jobs) , and otheradm i nis t rat i ve p un i shm ents , i ncludi ng i n som e cases the d estruct i on of propert y ”). T hu s, assum i ng t hat, i n som e cases,
sev ere ec o n o m ic pe n alt ies co u ld b e a s ef fe cti v e a s p h y sical pre ssu re in f o rcing an inv o lun tary ste riliza tio n , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e re c o rd e v id e n c e in th is c a se c o m p e lled th e B IA to fi nd a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hatJ i an H ui Shao w ou l d fac e s uch s ever e ec onom i c compul s i on
u p o n h is re m o v a l to C h in a . B eca us e w e i dent ify n o m er i ti n J i an H ui Shao’ s cl ai m s of fa ct - fi ndi ng err orbyt he B IA , w e d e n yh is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . 2. J i W en Shi
a. P et i t i on er’ s C ha llen g e t o the B IA ’s D e N ovo R evi ew of the Factual R ecor d I s E i t herW i t hout M eritorU npr es erved for R evi ew B efor e cha l l engi ng t he B I A ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i on t hathe fa i l ed t o demonstr at e a
w el l
- founded f

earof for ced s t er i l i zat i on i n C hi na, J i W en Shi as s ert s t hat t he B I A comm i t t ed leg a l er ro r b ye x a m in in g th e re c o rd e v id e n c e d e n o v o a f ter th e IJ h a d m a d e f

in d in g s in h is favor
. See Fen Y ong C hen v. B C I S, 470 F. 3d 509, 513- 14 ( 2d C i r . 2006) (ob serv ing that BI A i s n o t pe r mi t t e d t o e n g a g e i n d e n o v o r e v i e w o f a n I J ’ s f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g s ) ; 8 C. F
. R. § 1 0 0 3
. 1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( i v ) ( s t a t i n g t h a tBI A w i l l n o te n g a g e i n f a c t - f i n d i n g , “ [ e ] x c e p tf

o rt a k i ng admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of comm onl yknow n fac t s s uch as curr entevent s orthe cont ent s of offi ci al document s ”) ; i d. § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i ) ( s t at i ng t hat B I A w i l l r evi ew I J fi ndi ngs of fa ct onl yt o det erm i ne cl earerr or )
. W e di s agr ee.45

Fi r s t , we o b s e r v e t h a t t h e BI A d i d n o t c o n d u c t d e n o v o r e v i e w o f t h e I J ’ s cr i t i cal fi ndi ng of fa ct , i
. e. , t hatJ i W en Shi had t es t i fi ed cr edi bl yt o a fea rof for ced s t er i l i zat i on on
re m o v a l to C h in a . R a th e r, o n in iti a l ap p e a l f ro m th e g ra n t o f

re lief in f a v o r o f Ji W e n S h i, th e B IA m a d e a leg a l d e ter m in a tio n th a t, w h ile s u c h c re d ib le te stim o n yw a s s u f f icie n t to d e m o n stra te a g e n u in e su b jec tiv e f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n , m o re w a s n e e d e d to d e m o n stra te the o b jecti v e re aso n ab lene ss o f that fe ar. T h is c o m p o rt s w ith o u r de cisi o n in R am sam ea ch ir e
v . A s h c ro f

t, w h ich sta tes th a t th e su b jec tiv e e lem e n t o f

a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r c laim “ is
es t abl i s hed vi a the appl i cant ’ s cr edi bl e t es t i m onythathi s fea ri s genui ne; w hi l e the [ o bj ect i ve
e lem e n t] is la rg e lyd e p e n d e n t u p o n th e c o n tex t an d b e liev a b ili tyh e c a n e sta b lish f o r h is cl ai m s thr ough pr es ent at i on of r el i abl e, s peci fi c, obj ect i ve s uppor t i ng evi dence
. ” 357 F. 3d
a t 1 7 8 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). Second, t o t he ext entt he B I A i t s el f r evi ew ed evi dence and m ade f actual fi ndi ngs on the elem ent of obj ect i ve reasonab l eness, i tdid so w i t h the app arentcon sentof the part i es. O n the i ni t i al appea l , J i W en Shi s ubm i t t ed no few er t han ni net een a ddi t i onal document s for B I A cons i der at i on, s ee I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at187 n. 2 ( l i s t i ng document s s ubm i t t ed on i ni t i al appea l ) , neverques t i oni ng t he B I A ’ s author i t yt o r evi ew t hi s evi dence oras ki ng for
a r emand t o al l ow t he I J t o conductanyr evi ew i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance. F u r t her , i n the stip u latio n f

o r re m a n d f

ro m th is c o u rt, J i W e n S h i a g re e d to th e B IA ’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f still fur therevi dence t o be s ubm i t t ed b y the gover nm ent . See i d. at188 n. 4 ( i dent i fy i ng d o cu m en ts sub m itted o n rem an d ). O n ce ag ain, pe ti ti o n er raised n o o b jecti o n to the B IA ’s46

r evi ew of t hes e docum ent s or any of t he ot her r ecor d evi dence ; nordi d he ur ge r emand t o t he IJ f o r f u rt h e r f a c t- f in d in g . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e concl ude thatJ i W en Shi fai l ed t o pr es erve forour
r evi ew an yobj ect i on he mi ghthave ha d t o the B I A ’ s de novo r evi ew of the evi dence and det erm i nat i on of the obj ect i ve re as onabl enes s el ement of hi s w el l
- founded fear cl ai m . See S h u n fu L i v. M u k ase y , 5 2 9 F
. 3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 6 -47 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ).

b. Subst ant i al E vi dence Suppor t s t he B I A ’ s D et erm i nat i on tha t Pet i t i onerFa il ed t o D emonstr at e a Reas onabl e Pos s i bi l i t yt hat H e W oul d Face For ced St er i l i zat i on i n C hi na ( 1) C har ged Legal E r r ori n the C o n side rat i on of N at i onal Pol i ci es I n as s es s i ng t he obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s of Ji W en Shi ’ s pr ofes s ed fe arof for ced
s t er i l i zat i on, t he B I A appea r s t o have a s s um ed that , atthe “pol i cy ” and “ vi ol at i on” pr ongs
o f a n a l y s i s , p e t i t i o n e re s t a b l i s h e d t h a tCh i n e s e a u t h o r i t i e s wo u l d v i e w th e b i r t h o f h i s t wo
s ons i n the U ni t ed S t at es as a vi ol at i on of popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es . T hus , i t s r evi ew of the evi dence w as l i m i t ed t o t he i s s ue of e nfor cement , cons idering w hetherJ i W en Shi had adduce d a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyof for ced s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi na underei ther
n a tio n a l o r l o c a l e n f

o rc e m e n t p o lic ie s . O n h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew to th is c o u rt, Ji W e n S h i d e v o te s c o n sid e ra b le e n e rg yto ch all en g ing the B IA ’s co n side rati o n o f n ati o n al e n fo rce m en t p o li cies, argu ing that the B IA th u s h e ig h ten e d h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f a n d d isc o u n ted th e re lev a n c yo f e v id e n c e p e rta in in g to l ocal enforcem ent. S ee Ji W en S hi B r. at 23
. T he argu m ent m i sconst rues the B IA ’s act i on s.47

A s the B I A obs erved, J i W en Shi pr es ent ed a “ gener al i zed a r gum ent ” thathe fa ced a
r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof per s ecut i on on r eturn t o C hi na. I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I & N
. D ec. at189. H e d id n o t a rg u e th a t e n f o rc e m e n t p o licie s in h is n a tiv e p ro v in c e o f F u jian w e re m o re lik e ly t o expos e hi m t o t hi s pos s i bi l i t yt han pol i ci es gener al l y appl i cabl e t hr oughout C hi na. See i d. T h u s, a lth o u g h th e B IA h a d th a t sa m e d a y d e ter m in e d th a t th e e n f o rc e m e n t p ro n g o f

a w e llf o u n d e d f e a ra n a l y s i s wo u l d g e n e r a l l y f o c u s o n l o c a l p o l i c i e s , s e e I n r e J
- H- S
- , 2 4 I
. & N. D e c . at 1 9 9 -2 0 0 , in J i W e n S h i’s c a s e , th e B IA a f f o rd e d p e tit io n e r th e o p p o rtu n ityto demonstr at e a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof for ced s t eri l i zat i on t hr ough evi dence of ei ther nat i onal orl ocal enfor cementpol i ci es . W e i dent i fyno l egal err ori n s uch an aly sis a nd no p r e j u d i c e t o J i W e n Sh i ’ s a b i l i t yt o d e mon s t r a t e a r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t yo f e n f o r c e me nt
a m o u n tin g to p e rs e c u tio n a t th e lo c a l le v e l. ( 2) Fi ndi ngs as t o N at i onal E nfor cementPol i ci es A lth o u g h Ji W e n S h i f

a u lts th e B IA f

o r a ss e ss in g th e o b

jec tiv e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is cl ai m ed fe arof s t er i l i zat i on byr efe r ence t o nat i onal en fo rcem entpol i ci es , hi s gener al chal l enge t o t he B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs m i ght w el l be under s t ood t o ext end t o t hi s partof the agen cy ’s analy si s no les s than t o thatpert ai ning t o local enfo rcem ent pol i ci es. W e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t hatJ i W en Shi had notconvi nci ngl ydemonstr at ed a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof for ced s t er i l i zat i on bas ed on nati on al enfo rcem ent pol i ci es. F i rs t , t o the ext ent the A i rd affi dav i t s i nd i cat ed thatC hinese nat i onal s w ho had vi ol at ed thei rcountr y ’ s fami l ypl anni ng r egul at i ons abr oad coul d expec tF o r e x a m p le, th e A ird a f f id a v its re f

e r to a 1 9 8 8 in c id e n t in w h ich a C h in e se c o u p le 24 l i vi ng abr oad w as r eport edl yt ol d byfami l y pl anni ng offi ci al s t hatt heyw er e notauthor i zed t o have a s econd c hi l d. T he thr eat ened puni s hm entfora vi ol at i on, how ever , w as notfor ced s t er i l i zat i on bu t a b an o n p l ans t o expand the coupl e’ s fac t oryi n C hi na and uns peci fi ed puni s hm entt o t hei rw or kfor ce. See I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at189. T o t he ext entt he A i r d aff i davi t s al s o r el y on t he 2003 C hangl e C i t yA dm i ni s t r at i ve O pi ni on and 2003 Fuj i an Pr ovi nce A dm i ni s t r at i ve D eci s i on r efe r ence d i n Shou Y ung G uo v . G o n z a les , 4 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 -1 3 , w e d isc u ss th a t e v id e n c e in f ra a t [ 61- 65] i n addr es s i ng the B IA ’s f in d in g s w ith re s p e c t to lo c a l e n f o rc e m e n t. 48 t o fac e the s ame puni s hm ent s on r emoval as t hei r countr ym en w hos e vi ol at i ons had occ ur r ed in C h in a , the B IA a c ted w ith in it s d isc re tio n in d e c lin in g to in f e r th e re f ro m a re a so n a b le pos s i bi l i tyt hatJ i W en Shi fac ed fo r ced s t er i l i zat i on. A s t he B I A not ed, nothi ng i n t he aff i davi t s or t hei r s uppor t i ng att achment s r efe r ence d anyoccurr ence s of for ced s t er i l i zat i on. See I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at 189- 90. W e cannot concl ude thata contr aryfi ndi ng 24

w a s c o m p e lled in lig h t o f o u r o w n d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e A ird A f f id a v its a re “ in a d e q u a te to
es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of an offi ci al pol i cyof for ced s t er i l i zat i on . . . and thus i ns uffi ci ent to sh o w th a t th e a p p lica n ts w e re lik e ly to f a c e f o rc e d ste riliza tio n if

re tu rn e d to C h in a .” J in X i u C hen v. U
. S. D ep’ t of J us t i ce, 468 F. 3d 109, 110 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ; s ee W ei G uang W ang
v . B IA , 4 3 7 F
. 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 4 -76 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). Second, as i n J
- H
- S- , t he B I A acknow l edged that t he 2006 C ount r yR epor ti ndi cat ed thatenfor cementpol i ci es “s om et i m es l eft w om en w i t h l i t t l e pr act i cal choi ce butt o under go abor t i on ors t er i l i zat i on. ” I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at190. H er e aga i n, how ever , t he B I A rea so n ab l yr el i ed on the cont extof the s t at ement s t o fi nd t hatthe di l emm a w as bei ng
as cr i bed t o a s y s t em of econom i c r ew ar ds an d m o d er at e ec onom i c pena l t i es thatdi d notA l t hou g h Ji W en Shi as s er t s t hatthe B I A err ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i derw hether“a 25 sign i fi cant econo m i c hardship w ou l d resul t ” du e t o h i s fai l ure t o co m plyw i t h fa m ily pl anni ng pol i ci es , s ee J i W en Shi B r . at 25, i t i s evi dent t hat t he B I A di d expl i ci t l ycons i der thatpos s i bi l i t ybutconcl uded, cons i s t entw i t h i t s deci s i on i n I n r e T-Z- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. 163, and i t s concl us i on i n I n r e J
- H
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at200, thatatm os tJ i W en Shi w oul d fac e “moder at e ec onom i c i m pact ” notamount i ng t o per s ecut i on, I n r e J- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at 191. A lth o u g h th e B IA a lso n o ted th a t th e 2 0 0 7 P ro f ile ind ica ted th a t n a tio n a l p o licyd id 26 notpr ovi de forchi l dr en born over s eas t o be count ed forbi r t h pl anni ng purpos es w hen the par ent s r etur n t o C hi na, s ee I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at190 ( ci t i ng 2007 Pr ofi l e ¶¶ 111- 1 2 ), itsu b se q u e n tlyd isc u ss e d th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e F u jian P ro v in c e a n d C h a n g le C ity d o cu m en ts i n d icated a d iffe ren t loca l p rac ti ce . W e discu ss th e B IA ’s find ing s in tha t r eg ard in f ra a t [ 50- 52]
. 49 necessari l yam ou nt t o “p hy si cal or m ental coerci on . ” Id. (em ph asi s i n o ri ginal ). W hil e Ji 25 W en S h i dispu tes th is assess m en t of the e v iden c e , h e d o es so o n lythro u g h co n clus o ry
ar gum ent s , poi nt i ng t o no r el i abl e, s peci fi c, and obj ect i ve evi dence thatw oul d have
co m p ell ed the B IA to i n fe r fro m the qu o ted l an g u ag e i n the 20 0 6 C o u n tryR ep o rtthat there
w as a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hatpet i t i onerw oul d be “f or ced”

— phy s i cal l y or otherw i s e — t o s ubm i tt o s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi na. See R amsameachi r e v. A s hcr oft , 357 F. 3d at 178; acc or d Y i L ong Y ang v. G onzal es , 478 F. 3d at140- 4 1
. In fa ct, forr eas ons al r eady det ai l ed i n di scu ssing a r el at ed ar gum entbyJ i an H ui Shao, w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s c o n tra ryf in d in g . S e e su p ra a t [ 38- 44]
. T h ird , the B IA f

u rth e r su p p o rte d its f

a c tu a l f in d in g s b yre f

e re n c e to a S tate D epart m entr epor ti ndi cat i ng t hatA m er i can di pl om at s i n C hi na w er e unaw ar e of “ ‘ anycas es i n w hi ch r etur nees fr om t he U ni t ed St at es w er e for ced t o under go s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur es on thei rr etur n. ’ ” In re J-W -S -, 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at191 ( quot i ng 2005 Pr ofi l e at28)
. T he 2650

sign ifi ca n ce o f the re p o rtis high li g h ted b ythe f ac t th at, d esp it e the v o lum ino u s d o cu m en tary
r ecor ds devel oped i n t hes e t hr ee cas es , none of t he pet i t i oner s poi nt s us t o evi dence of any per s on bei ng for ci bl ys t er i l i zed on r emoval t o C hi na bas ed on havi ng tw o chi l dr en. I n s um , beca us e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t hat no n ati onal
e n f o rc e m e n t p o licyg iv e s rise to a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili tyth a t Ji W e n S h i w o u ld b e f o rc ib ly
s t er i l i zed on r emoval t o C hi na, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he B I A w as compel l ed t o fi nd a
w el l
- founded f

earof s uch per s ecut i on.

( 3) Fi ndi ngs as t o L ocal E nfor cementPol i ci es T he sam e con cl usi on app l i es w i t h res pect t o ev i den ce of l ocal enforcem ent pol i ci es. W hi l e of fi c i a l do c umen t s fr om Fuj i a n Pr ov i nc e a nd Chan gl e Ci t yi nd i c a t e t ha tCh i nese nat i onal s w ho vi ol at e bi r t h l i m i t s w h il e abroa d w i l l be s ubj ectt o the s ame puni s hm entas
c iti z e n s w h o se v io latio n s o c c u r in C h in a , the B IA re a so n a b lyo b se rv e d th a t th e se d o c u m e n ts
m a d e n o “ re f

e r[ e n c e ] to ste riliza tio n , m u c h le s s f o rc e d ste riliza tio n ,” a s a p o ss ib le puni s hm ent . I d. at 192. A s i n J
- H
- S- , t he B I A decl i ned t o i nfera r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyof
su ch p erse cu ti o n fro m the re fe ren ce in the 1 9 9 5 C h an g le C ityO p inion to m an d atory
s t e r i l i z a t i o n f

o r u n a u t h o r i z e d b i r t h s , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t n o r e c o r d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t hatt he
m a n d a te “ is im p lem e n ted th ro u g h p h y sic a l f o rc e o r o th e r m e a n s th a t w o u ld a m o u n t to p e rse c u tio n .” Id . T h e B IA w a s e n tit led to v iew th e o m iss io n a s s ig n if ica n t in lig h t o f

S tate D epart m entevi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat( a) “ce ntral g overnm entpol i cypr ohi bi t s phy s i cal
coer ci o n t o compel per s ons t o s ubm i tt o fami l ypl anni ng enfor cement , ” i d. at193 ( ci t i ngT he B ri t i sh asses sm ent sug gest ed t hat enforcem ent of birt h co ntr ol pol i cy“i s l ess 27 stric t in F u

jian th a n in a n y o th e r p ro v in c e e x c e p t G u a n g d o n g .” C o u n tryIn f o . & P o licyU n it, U K I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t y D i r ect or at e, C hi na C ount r yA s s es s m ent( A pr . 2002) ¶ 6. 26; see al so 20 01 G reen h a lg h & W i nck l er Stud yat15 8-60 (descri bing C han gle coun t yas a “good exa m pl e of a coas t al county w i t h poor bi r t h pl anni ng” and “an ar ea of par t i cul ar l yl ax enfor cement , ” mai nl ydue t o fami l i es ’ s t r ong pr efe r ence for s ons and l eade r s ’ fai l ur e t o “t ake th e le a d ” ). 51 2002 C ount r yR epor t§ 1( f) ; 2006 C ount r yR epor t§ 1( f) ) ; ( b) even i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, chi l dr en born abr oad mi ghtnotbe count ed aga i ns tthe num ber of t hei rpar ent s ’ author i zed b irths “ ‘i f n o t r eg ist ere d as p erm an en t reside n ts o f C h ina,’” id. ( q u o ti n g 2 0 0 7 P rof il e ¶ 1 1 2 ); and ( c) enfor cementeff or t s i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce w er e “l ax” or“uneve n, ” id. ( ci t i ng 1998 Pr ofi l e at 21, 26) ; s ee al s o i d. at 193- 94 ( des cr i bi ng “w i de var i at i on” i n how Fuj i an Pr ovi nce i m pos es penal t yfee s forunauthor i zed bi r t hs ( quot i ng 2005 Pr ofi l e at25) ) ; i d. at194 ( not i ng that B r i t i s h author i t i es s i m i l ar l y char act er i zed enfor cement pol i ci es i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce a s l ax ( ci t i ng C ount r yI nfo. & Pol i cyU ni t , U K I m m i gr at i on & N at i onal i t yD i r ect or at e, C hi na C o u n tryA sses sm en t ( A p r. 2 0 0 2 )))
. 27 Fr om t hi s evi dence , t he B I A w as fur t herent i t l ed t o concl ude thata r efe r ence i n t he 2006 C ount r y R epor t t o unatt r i but ed r epor t s of for ced s t er i l i zat i ons i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce of an
u n sp e c if ied n u m b e r o f

w o m e n in u n d e sc r ib e d c irc u m sta n c e s d id n o t p e rsu a siv e ly demonstr at e a r eas onabl e poss i bi l i t y t hat J i W en Shi w oul d fac e s uch per s ecut i on on r emoval t o C hi na. See gener al l y J i an X i n H uang v. I N S, 421 F. 3d at129 ( obs ervi ng t hatanyevi dence
o f f o rc e d ste riliza tio n o f

o th e rs m u st d e m o n str a te c irc u m sta n c e s s u f f icie n tlysim ilar to p e t i t i o n e r ’ s t o p r ov i de “ s o l i d s u p p o r t ” f o rc l a i m o f

a we l l
- f

o u n d e d f

e a ro f t h e s a meIt a p p e a rs f ro m o u r rev iew o f th e re c o rd th a t th e B IA re lied u p o n th re e S tate 28 D epart m ent docu m ents t hat w ere notsubm i t t ed b yt h e p a rt i es i n reaching i t s conclusi on s: the 2 00 6 C ou ntryR epo rt , and t he 2 00 5 an d 2 00 7 P rofi l es. A toral argum en t, h o w e v er, Ji W e n S h i c la ri f

ie d th a t h is c h a lle n g e w a s lim ite d to th e B IA ’s u s e o f th e 2 0 0 7 P ro f

ile
. 52 p e rse c u tio n o n re m o v a l). In d e e d , as in J-H -S -, th e B IA n o ted th a t it s d e c isio n to a c c o rd little
w ei ghtt o t he unatt r i but ed r epor t s w as r ei nfor ced bySt at e D epart m enti nt ervi ew s i n 2006
w i th vi s a appl i cant s fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, w hi ch “y i el ded ‘ no evi dence ’ of for ced a bor t i ons
or pr oper ty confi s cat i on. ” I n r e J- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at194 ( quot i ng 2007 Pr ofi l e ¶ 99 ( al s o r epor t i ng t hatcons ular off i ci al s tr avel i ng i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce r epor t ed no evi dence of fo rce d steri li za ti o n s o r ab o rt ion s)). A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude that s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t hat J i W en Shi had n o t dem ons t r at ed a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t ythatl ocal enfor cementpol i ci es
w oul d s ubj ecthi m t o for ced s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi na.

c. T he B I A D i d N ot D epr i ve Ji W en Shi of D ue Pr oces s byT aki ng A dm i ni s t r at i ve N ot i ce of the 2007 Pr ofi l e J i W en Shi s ubm i t s t hat t he B I A ’ s fac t - fi ndi ng i s i nfec t ed by a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, speci fi cal l y , t he B oard’s rel i ance o n a d ocu m ent not subm i t t ed int o ev i den ce byt he p art i es, i
. e. , the St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2007 Pr ofi l e, w i t hout pr ovi di ng not i ce of i t s i nt entt o do s o oran oppor tuni tyt o r es pond. 28 ( 1) T aki ng A dm i ni s t r at i ve N ot i ce of t he M os tR ece nt R e p o rts T h e B IA ’s a u th o rityto tak e n o tice o f S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts o n c o n d iti o n s in for ei gn countr i es i s pr ovi ded for i n 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i v) ( author i zi ng “admi ni s t r at i ve53

not i ce o f comm onl yknow n fac t s s uch as curr entevent s ort he cont ent s of off i ci al d o c u m e n ts” ). In d e e d , th is c o u rt h a s c h a ra c ter ize d a s “ w e ll-se ttl e d ” th e B IA ’s “ a u th o rityto t ake a dm i ni s t r at i ve not i ce of curr entevent s bear i ng on an [as y l um ] appl i cant ’ s w el l
- founded fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n . ” Q u n Y an g v . M cE lr o y , 2 7 7 F
. 3 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 3 n . 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). F u rth er, wh i l e we h a v e e mp h a s i z e d t h a t S t a t e De p a r t me n t r e p o r t s a r e n o t“ b i n d i n g ” o n t h e BI A, we have r ecogni zed thats uch r epor t s ar e “‘ us ual l y t he bestavai l abl e s our ce of i nform at i on’ on
co u n tryco n d it ion s. ” X iao J i C h en v . U
. S
. D ep ’to f Ju sti ce , 4 7 1 F
. 3 d 3 1 5 , 3 4 1 -42 (2d C ir
. 2006) ( quot i ng Z amora v. I N S, 534 F. 2d 1055, 1062 ( 2d C i r . 1976) ( Fr i endl y , J
. ) ) ; s ee Y an C h e n v . G o n z a le s , 4 1 7 F .3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 4 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). M ind fu l of

this prec ed en t, w e n o te th at a n ea rl ier v ersion o f th e S tat e D ep artm en t’ s Pr ofi l e on C hi na, s peci fi cal l y , i t s 1998 Pr ofi l e, w as par t of t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d, havi ng b ee n p u t i n to ev iden ce b ef o re the IJ at Ji W en S h i’ s rem o v al pro ce ed ing s. S ee In re J-W -S -, I. & N . D e c . at 1 8 6 n .1 (id e n tify in g 1 9 9 8 P ro f ile a m o n g d o c u m e n ts b e f o re IJ) . P re c ise ly becau se w e hav e w arned ag ai nstrel i ance o n o utdat ed versi on s o f S t at e D epart m ent r epo rt s,
s ee Tam badou v. G o n zal es , 446 F. 3d 298, 304 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( faul t i ng B I A forr el y i ng on

“ o u td a ted re p o rt th a t m a yn o t h a v e a c c u r a te ly re f lec ted th e c u rre n t co n d iti o n s in M aur i t ani a”) ; T i an- Y ong C hen v. I N S, 359 F. 3d 121, 131 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( not i ng that1995 C o u n tryR e p o rt m a yb e o f little v a lu e o n re m a n d to e x ten t it “ n o lo n g e r n e c e ss a rilyre f lec ts the curr entat t i tudes and re s pons es of t he C hi nes e aut hor i t i es t ow ar d the pr act i ce of R om an C athol i ci s m ”) , w e t hi nk i t r eas onabl e t hat t he B I A s ought t o expand the r ecor d t o i ncl ude the54

m os tr ece ntPr ofi l e. T hus , our s i ngul arconce r n i s i t s deci s i on t o do s o w i t houtaff or di ng t he p a rties n o tice o f

th is a c tio n o r an o p p o rtu n ity to c h a llen g e a n y n e w in f o rm a tio n c o n tain e d in th e 2 0 0 7 P ro f

ile
. ( 2) T he Lack of N ot i ce D i d N otD epr i ve J i W en Shi of D ue

P rocess Pr ocedur al due pr oces s i s a “fl exi bl e s t andar d, ” t he par amet er s of w hi ch “ca n v ary

. . . dependi ng on ‘ “the pr i vat e i nt er es tthatw i l l be af fec t ed bythe off

i ci al act i on”’ as compar ed t o ‘ t he G overnm ent ’ s as s ert ed i nt er es t , “i ncl udi ng t he funct i on i nvol ved” and the bur dens the governm entw o u ld fac e i n pr ovi di ng gr eat erpr oces s . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. A buhamra , 389 F. 3d 309, 318 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng H amdi v. R um s fel d, 542 U
. S. 507, 529 (2 0 0 4 ) (q u o tin g M a th e w s v . E ld rid g e , 4 2 4 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 3 5 (1 9 7 6 ))). “ A c o u rt m u st c a re f u lly bal ance thes e com pet i ng conce r ns , anal y zi ng ‘ “the ri s k of an e r r oneous depr i vat i on” of the pr i vat e i nt er es t i f t he pr oces s w er e r educe d and the “pr obabl e val ue, i f any , of addi t i onal or
s u b s t i tu t e s a f

e g u a r d s . ” ’ ” I d
. ( q u o t i n g Ha md i v . Ru ms f e l d , 5 4 2 U. S
. a t5 2 9 ( q u o t i n g M a t h e ws
v. E l dr i dge, 424 U
. S. at335) )
. R ece nt l y , t hi s cour tcons i der ed the pr oces s du e an a s y l um appl i canti n a ca s e w her e the B I A deni ed a m ot i on t o r eopen “bas ed sol el y on fac t s of w hi ch ittoo k ad m inistrati v e n o ti ce . ” C h h etryv . U
. S
. D ep ’to f Ju sti ce , 4 9 0 F
. 3 d 1 9 6 , 1 9 8 (2d C ir
. 2007)
. C hhetr yhad s oughtr eopeni ng bas ed on a r egi m e cha nge i n hi s nat i ve N epal t hathe cl ai m ed puthi s l i fe a tr i s k on r emoval due t o hi s s uppor tfort he now
- di s favor ed pol i t i cal party . I n deny i ng t he mot i on, t he B I A t ook not i ce of var i ous w ebs i t e r epor t s i ndi cat i ng that the pol i t i cal part ys uppor t ed byC hhetr yhad r ece nt l yr egai ned pow er. S ee i d. at198- 99.55

W h ile w e id e n tifie d n o e rro r in th e B IA “ ta k in g a d m in istra tiv e n o tice o f p o ten tially di s pos i t i ve fa ct s , ” w e conc l uded that“i tdi d ex ce ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o pr ovi de C h h e tryw ith a n o p p o rtu n ityto re b u t th e sig n if ica n c e o f

th o se f a c ts b e f o re is s u in g its d e c isio n .” Id . at 20 1 (re m a n d in g f o r fu rth e r pr o c e e d in g s to a f f o rd p e tit io n e r o p p o rtu n ityto
re s p o n d to n o tic e d e v id e n c e ). In B u rge r v. G o n za les, w e ru led th at th e d u e pro ce ss co n ce rns id en ti fied in C h h etry
w e re n o t cu re d b yth e p ro sp e c t o f a m o tio n to re o p e n : “ d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire s th [ e ] sa m e re su lt b e f o re th e B IA e n te rs a f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l o n th e b a s is o f

a d m in is tr a tiv e ly n o tic e d f a c ts .” 498 F. 3d 131, 132- 33 ( 2d C i r . 2007)
. I n thatcas e, an I J had gr ant ed B ur geras y l um , fi ndi ng thathers tr ong pol i t i cal vi ew s agai ns tt he M i l os evi c re gi m e, combi ned w i t h herfame as an actr es s , gave r i s e t o a w el l
- founded fe arof per s ecut i on on r emoval t o Serbi a- M ont enegr o. T h e B IA re v e rse d , tak in g a d m in istra tiv e n o tice o f M ilo se v ic’ s re m o v a l f

ro m p o w e r a n d h is p e n d in g c rim in a l trial b e f o re a n in ter n a tio n a l tribu n a l. O b se rv in g th a t th e “ a d m in istra tiv e ly not i ced f act s cons t i tut ed the s ol e bas i s ” forthe B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatB ur ger no l onger harbor ed a w el l
- founded fea r of per s ecut i on, w e conc l uded thatthe B I A had err ed byfai l i ng t o gi ve pet i t i oner“adva nce not i ce of i t s i nt enti o n to c ons i der[the] extr a- r ecor d fac t ” of M ilo se v ic’ s d o w n f

a ll an d “ th e o p p o rtu n ityto re b u t th is f a c t’s sig n if

ica n c e b e f

o re iss u in g its d e c is io n .” Id . a t 1 3 5 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l)
. W ith th e se o p in io n s in m in d , w e re a d ily c o n c lu d e th a t itw o u ld h a v e b e e n p re f e ra b le forthe B I A t o have a dvi s ed Ji W en S hi of i t s i nt entt o cons i derthe 2007 Pr ofi l e and t o haveW e not e thatt he B I A di d nothave the bene fi tof ourdec isi o n s i n C hhetr yand 29 B u rge r at the t im e i t issue d it s p rec ed en ti al d ec isi o n in J- H -S -. B u t see In re S -Y -G -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . at 2 5 1 n .2 (c iti n g C h h e tryin n o tin g th a t p e tit io n e r h a d n o t ch a llen g e d d o c u m e n ts s u b mi t t e d b yDe p a r t me n to f Ho me l a n d S e c u r i t yo n r e ma n d )
. I n l i g h to f th o s e d e c i s i o n s , we stro n g lye n c o u ra g e th e B IA to a d o p t p ro c e d u re s to a ler t th e p a rties o f a n ya g e n c yin ten t to ta k e ju d ic ia l n o tic e o f

e x tr a -r e c o rd f

a c ts a n d to a f

f o rd th e m a n o p p o rt u n ity to b e h e a rd
. 56 aff or ded hi m an oppor tuni t yt o r es pond t her et o. W e ar e not per s uaded, how ever , t hatthe 29 f a ilu re to d o s o re s u lte d in a v io la tio n o f d u e p ro c e s s re q u ir in g re m a n d
. A cr i t i cal fac ti nform ed ouri dent i fi cat i on of a due pr oces s deni al i n bot h C hhetryand B ur ger : the j udi ci al l yno ti ced fac t s w er e the s ol e bas i s fordeny i ng pet i t i oner s r el i ef. See C h h e tryv . U .S . D e p ’t o f Ju stic e , 4 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 9 8 (re f e re n c in g B IA ’s d e n ial o f m o tio n to
r eopen ba s ed “s ol el yon fac t s of w hi ch i tt ook admi ni s t r at i ve not i ce” ) ; s ee a l s o B ur gerv. G o n z a les , 4 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 (o b se rv in g th a t “ a d m in istra tiv e ly n o tice d f a c ts c o n stitu ted th e so le b asis” fo r th e rev ersa l o f a sy lum (em p h asis in o ri g inal)). B u t fo r th e n o ti ce d fa cts, p eti ti o n ers had c a rr i e d t h e i rb u r d e n t o a d d u c e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e i rc l a i ms f o rr e l i e f ( e i t her
re o p e n in g in C h h e tryo r a sy lu m in B u rg e r). T h is c a se is q u ite d if f e re n t. T h e 2 0 0 7 P ro f

ile
w as nott he s ol e gr ound fordeny i ng J i W en Shi ( oranyof the pet i t i oner s ) r el ief fr om
r emoval
. T o t he contr ary , t he B I A poi nt ed t o s ubs t ant i al evi dence apart fr om the 2007 P ro f ile to su p p o rt its f

a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n th a t Ji W e n S h i h a d f a iled to c a rryh is b u rd e n to demonstr at e a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y of for ced s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi na. T hus , the 20 07 Pr of

i l e w a s no t “ di s po s i t i ve ” of J i W e n Shi ’ s a pp l i c a t i on fo r a s y l um. Chhe t r yv. U
. S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 490 F. 3d at201. R ather , t he 2007 Pr ofi l e s i m pl ycorr obor at ed the d is p o s itio n a lr e a d ys u p p o rt e d b yth e v o lu m in o u s re c o rd e v id e n c e a d d u c e d b yth e p a rt ie s .57

W e emphas i ze that , even i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e s t r ongl yur ge the B I A t o adopt p ro c e d u re s th a t w ill p ro v id e n o tice o f a n d a n o p p o rtu n ityto b e h e a rd o n a n ya d m in istra tiv e ly not i ced f act s . W e do not , how ever , fi nd t hatthe fa i l ur e t o do s o i n t hi s cas e r os e t o the l evel
o f a d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n re q u ir in g re m a n d
.

3. Show Y ung G uo
a. T he B I A A ct ed W i t hi n I t s D i s cr et i on i n D eny i ng R eopeni ng ( 1) St andar d of R evi ew B eca us e Show Y ung G uo’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew i s fr om t he B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen, her bur den i s heavi er t han thatof the othertw o pet i t i oner s w ho s eek r evi ew fr om the B IA ’s ad v erse asy lum ruli n g s o n d ir ec t app e a l. T h is i s b ec au se m o ti o n s to reo p en are g e n e ra lly“ d isf

a v o re d ,” IN S v . D o h e rty , 5 0 2 U .S . at 3 2 3 , in lig h t o f th e “ stro n g p u b lic i nt er es t ” i n t he fi nal i tyof r emoval orde rs, I N S v. A budu, 485 U
. S. 94, 107- 08 ( 1988) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat “[g] r ant i ng s uch m ot i ons t oo fr eel yw i l l perm i tendl es s del ayof deport at i on by al i ens cr eat i ve and fert i l e enough t o cont i nuous l y pr oduce new and m at erial fac ts ”) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). C o n sis ten t w ith th is in ter e st, tim e a n d n u m b e r b a rs a p p ly t o m ot i ons t o r eopen. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A ) , ( C ) ; 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2( c)
. A n al i en
s uch as S h o w Y u n g G u o can i nvoke an e xcept i on t o t hes e bar s “bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n t he countr yof nat i onal i t yor i n t he count r y t o w hi ch deport at i on has been or der ed, if su ch evi dence 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 or pr es ent ed at t he pr evi ous hear i ng. ” 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i )
. E ven w hen58

an ali en sati sfies th e u n av ail ab il ityco n d it ion n o ted in this rule, h o w ev er, he r ab il ityto se cu re
r eopeni ng depends on a demonstr at i on of pr i m a faci e el i gi bi l i t y for as y l um , w hi ch means s he
m us ts how a “r ea li sti c chance ” thats he w i l l be abl e t o obt ai n s uch r el i ef. Por adi s ova v. G onzal es , 420 F. 3d at78. T hi s r equi r es t he ali en t o carr yt he “he avybur den” of d e mo n s tr a t i n g t h a t t h e p r o f f e r e d n e w e v i d e n c e wo u l d l i k e l y a l t e r t h e r e s u l t i n h e rc a s e . I NS
v. A b u d u, 485 U
. S. at110 ( anal ogi zi ng bur den fa ced byal i en s eeki ng t o r eopen r emoval pr oc e e di ng s t o tha tof cri m i nal de fe nd a ntmovi ng fo rne w t r i a l ) ; s e e Li Y on g Cao v. U
. S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 421 F. 3d 149, 156- 57 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng I n r e C oel ho, 20 I
. & N
. D ec. 4 6 4 , 4 7 3 (B .I.A . 1 9 9 2 ))
. W e r evi ew a B I A deci s i on t o denyr eopeni ng d ef ere nt i al l yforabus e of di s cr et i on. See Q i n W en Zheng v. G onzal es , 500 F. 3d 143, 146 ( 2d C i r . 2007)
. W e w i l l i dent i fys uch abus e onl yi f the B I A ’ s deci s i on- m aki ng w as “arbi t r aryorcapr i ci ous , ” Por adi s ova v. G onzal es , 420 F. 3d at77, as evi dence d by a deci s i on t hat “pr ovi des no r at i onal expl anat i on” forthe age ncy ’ s concl us i on, “i nexpl i cabl y depart s fr om es t abl i s hed pol i ci es , i s devoi d of any
reas on i ng , o r c o n tain s o n lysu m m a ryo r c o n c lu so rysta tem e n ts,” Q in W e n Z h e n g v . G on zal es, 50 0 F
. 3d at14 6 (i nternal quotat i on m arks o m itt e d ). In the ab sence o f such con cerns, how ever , w e do notdemand t hatt he B I A “expr es s l ypar s e orr efut e on the r ecor d eac h i ndi vi dual ar gum entorpi ece o f ev ide nce of fer ed byt he pet i t i oner . ” Zhi Y un G ao v. M u k a s e y , 5 0 8 F
. 3 d 8 6 , 8 7 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )
. S t i l l , a s we
n o ted in o u r re m a n d o rd e r in th is c a se , ag e n c yf a c t-f in d e rs h a v e a p a rticu lar d u tye x p licitly59

t o consi der rel evan t evidence of coun t ry con dit i on s w hen a peti t i on er bases a m oti on to
r eopen on a purpor t ed change i n t hos e condi t i ons . W her e s uch cons i der at i on has been gi ven,
w e re v iew the B IA ’s fa ct-find ing o n lyfo r “su b stan ti al ev iden ce . ” P ing C h en v . U
. S
. A tt ’y G en. , 502 F. 3d 73, 75 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ; s ee M aghr adze v. G onzal es , 462 F. 3d 150, 152- 53 ( 2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). (2) S h o w Y u n g G u o ’s C lai m o f “ C h an g ed C o u n try C on dit i on s” S h o w Y u n g G u o su b m its th a t th e B IA e rre d in f in d in g th a t s h e f

a iled to d e m o n stra te
a c h a n g e i n c o u n t r yc o n d i t i o n s . I n e x p l a i n i n g wh ywe i d e n t i f yn o me r i ti n th i s a r g u me n t , we begi n bydr aw i ng a di s t i nct i on betw een c hanges i n the s ubs t ance and i n the enf or cementof C h i n a ’ s p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l p o l i c y. Subst ant i al r ecor d evi dence cl ear l y s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t hatShow Y ung G uo f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n t h e s u b s t a n c e o f C h i n a ’ s p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l p o l i c y,
w hi ch, atal l r el evantt i m es , has di s favor ed a f ami l y h av ing m or e than one c hi l d. T o the
e x ten t S h o w Y u n g G u o re lied o n d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e f ro m F u jian P ro v in c e a n d C h a n g le C i tyfami l ypl anni ng admi nist rati ons t o demonstr at e a c hange i n the enf or cementof the pol i cy— s peci fi cal l y , by clarify i ng thatr eturni ng C hi nes e nat i onal s w ho had vi ol at ed p o p u latio n c o n tro l p o licie s a b ro a d w o u ld b e su b jec t to th e sa m e e n f

o r c e m e n t as th e ir countrym en w hos e vi ol at i ons had occurr ed i n C hi na
— t he B I A di d not s peci fi cal l yrul e that
su c h e v id e n c e d e m o n stra ted a m a ter ial c h a n g e in c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s. In ste a d , ita p p e a rs to h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t, e v e n if S h o w Y u n g G u o w e re g iv e n th e b e n e f it o f th e d o u b t o n th is60

p o in t, sh e w a s n o t en tit led to r e o p e n in g b e c a u se sh e h a d n o t d e m o n stra ted p rim a f a c ie
e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m . S p e c if

ica lly , sh e h a d n o t ad d u c e d e v id e n c e th a t co n v in c in g ly
e sta b lish e d a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ilityth a t sh e w o u ld f a c e e n f o rc e m e n t am o u n tin g to persecut i on . B ecause s ub st anti al evidence sup po rt s this determ i nati on , w e i den t i fyno abu se of di s cr et i on i n t he deni al of Show Y ung G uo’ s m ot i on t o r eopen. ( 3) Show Y ung G uo’ s Fai l ur e t o D emonstr at e P rim a Fa c ie E l i gi bi l i t yforR el i ef f

r om R emoval ( a ) T h e BI A’ s E v i d e n t i a r yF r a me wo r k M a n i f e s t s No E r r orof Law I n fi ndi ng t hat Show Y ung G uo had not demonstr at ed pr i m a fac i e el i gi bi l i t yfor asy lum b ase d o n a f

ea r of fu ture p erse cu ti o n d erive d fro m h er h av ing tw o ch il d ren , the B IA
r evi ew ed the evi dence by r efe r ence t o t he s ame thr ee- par t evi dent i ary fr amew or k empl oy ed i n J
- H
- S- and J
- W
- S-
. A l one am ong t he pet i t i oner s now befor e thi s court , Show Y ung G uo
as s er t s t hatt hi s fr amew or k m ani fes t s l egal err orbeca us e i ti m p os es a hea vi erbur den on
as y l um appl i cant s t han perm i t t ed byt he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n I N S v. C ar dozaF o n s e c a , 4 8 0 U .S . a t 4 4 0 -4 1 . W e d is a g re e . W e do notunder s t and the thr ee- s t ep ana ly sis i dent i fi ed bythe B I A i n J
- H
- S- , and empl oy ed byi ti n al l t hr ee c as es , t o i m pos e any bur den of pr oof on as y l um appl i cant s , m uch l es s one atodds w i t h t he “r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i ty ” stan d ard r efe r ence d i n I N S v. C ar dozaFonse ca, 480 U
. S. at440. See 8 C
. F.R
. § 1208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i ) ( B )
. R ather , w e under s t and the
a n a ly sis sim p ly to p ro v id e a f ra m e w o rk f

o r th e a g e n c y ’s r e v iew o f e v id e n c e to f

a c ili tate its61

det erm i nat i on of w hen the r eas onabl e pos s i b il it y stan dar d i s s at i s fi ed byan appl i cantw ho cl ai m s a fe arof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed s i m pl yon the fa ct t hat he or s he has m or e than one ch il d
. S u ch a f

ram ew o rk is u sef

u l bec au se, a s the B IA n o ted, th e u n d erstan d ing o f C h ina’s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es and the means us ed t o enfor ce them can vary w idelyfr om one
ar ea of the countryt o anot h er . T hus , i n as s es s i ng cl ai m s of fe ar ed futur e per s ecut i on on a
cas e- by
- cas e bas i s , i ti s appr opr i at e t o r evi ew the evi dence t o det erm i n e, f i r s t , w hatpol i cy appl i es t o t he ci r cumst ance s ati s s ue and, s econd, w hetherl ocal offi ci al s w oul d be i ncl i ned t o vi ew the pet i t i oner ’ s act i ons as a vi ol at i on of thatpol i cy . I n t he abs ence of evi d ence of
su c h a p o licya n d p e rc e iv e d v io latio n , an a lie n c o u ld h a rd lyd e m o n stra te a n o b jec tiv e ly
r eas onabl e fe arof anyenfor cementact i on, l etal one enf or cementamount i ng t o per s ecut i on. O n the o ther h an d , w h ere the re co rd sh o w s tha t l o ca l of ficials are li k elyto v iew p eti ti o n er’s act i ons as a vi ol at i on of a popul at i on contr ol pol i cy , t he cr i t i cal i nqui ryi s t he fi nal one:
w hetheroffi ci al s w i l l t ake e nfor cementact i on agai ns t pet i t i onert hatamount s t o per s ecut i on. B ec au se w e d o n o t un d erstan d the B IA ’s ev iden ti aryfra m ew o rk to d em an d p roo f o f m o re than a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof s uch abus i ve enf or cement , w e r ej ectas w i t houtm er i tShow Y ung G uo’ s l egal chal l enge t o t hatfr amew or k. ( b) Subst ant i al E vi dence Suppor t s t he B I A ’ s Fi ndi ng t hatShow Y ung G uo F ail ed t o D emonstr at e a R eas onabl e Pos s i bi l i t yof F or ced St er i l i zat i on on R emoval t o C hi na In apply i ng t he thr ee-partevident i aryanaly si s i den t i fi ed in J-H -S -, the B IA fi rs t
e x p re ss e d re se rv a tio n s as to w h e th e r th e F u jian P ro v in c e a n d C h a n g le C it y d o c u m e n ts62

demonstr at ed t hat offi ci al s i n t hos e ar eas w oul d vi ew t he bi r t h of Show Y ung G uo’ s s econd
c h ild a s a v io latio n o f

p o p u latio n c o n tro l p o licie s. I t p ro c e e d e d to f in d th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, pet i t i onerhad fai l ed t o adduce convi nci ng evi dence of a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hats he fa ced f o rc e d s te ri liz a tio n o n re m o v a l to C h in a . i
. U ncert ai ntyas t o a “Per cei ved V i ol at i on” T he s t r onges tevi dence i ndi cat i ng thatC hi nes e off i ci al s w oul d per cei ve the bi r th of S h o w Y u n g G uo’ s s econd c hi l d i n t he U ni t ed St at es as a vi ol at i on of popul at i on contr ol p o licie s is d e riv e d f

ro m th e p ro n o u n c e m e n ts o f F u jian P ro v in c e a n d C h a n g le C ityf a m ily pl anni ng author i t i es . I n r es pons e t o an i nqui r y about Z heng Y u H e, w hos e w i fe ha d gi ven bi r th t o a n u n a u t h o r i z e d s e c o n d c h i l d whi l e v i s i t i n g th e Uni t e d St a t e s , b o t h a u t h o r i t i es i nd i cat ed that Z hen g Y u H e w as subject t o penalt i es for viol at i ng po pu l at i on con t rol l i m i t s. T he author i t i es expl ai ned that C hi nes e nat i onal s w ho vi ol at ed popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es
w hi l e abr oad w er e s ubj ectt o t he s ame e nfor cementact i ons as countr ym en w hos e vi ol at i ons
occurr ed i n C hi na. I n expl ai ni ng w hyi thes i t at ed t o i nfer fr om t hes e docum ent s t hat offi ci al s w oul d vi ew the b i rth o f S ho w Y un g G uo ’s second child in th e U n it ed S t at es as a vi olat i on of C hinese populat i on contr ol pol i ci es , t he B I A poi nt ed t o r ecor d evi dence s ugges t i ng t hatfac tual di ffe r ence s betw een pe t i t i o n er and Zheng Y u H e mi ghti ncl i ne author i t i es t o vi ew her ci r cumst ance s m or e fa vor abl y . Fi r s t , the 7- y eari nt erval betw een t he bi r t hs of Show Y ung G uo’ s tw o chi l dr en w as s om ew hatl ongert han the 51⁄2
- y eari nt erva l betw een the bi r t hs of63

Z heng Y u H e’ s chi l dr en. Fur t her , Show Y ung G uo had r es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es form any y ear s , w her eas Z heng Y u H e’ s w i fe ha d been i n t hi s countr yonl yfora fe w m ont hs w hen s he gave bi r th. U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , the B I A ques t i oned w hetherthe conc l us i on r eac hed b yth e F u jian a u th o rities w ith re sp e c t to Z h e n g Y u H e — th a t th e b irth o f h is s e c o n d c h ild in th e U n ited S tate s w a s n o t su b jec t to a n y e x c e p tio n f

ro m th e o n e -c h ild p o licy— n e c e ss a rily appl i ed t o Show Y ung G uo. See I n r e S- Y
- G
- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at 255- 56 ( not i ng t hat2005 Pr ofi l e at21 s ugges t ed thatl ongeri nt erval s s om eti m es r es ul t ed i n “i ncr eas i ngl yr el axed”
s t andar ds for author i zi ng bi r t h of s econd chi l d)
. M or eover , Z heng Y u H e w as a governm ent empl oy ee a nd C om m uni s tPar t ym ember , a s t atus cal l i ng for p arti cu l ar l ys t r i ctappl i cat i on of popul a t i o n c o n t r o l l i mi t s , whe r e a s Sh o w Y u n g Guo was n e i t h e r . Se e i d
. a t2 5 5 ( n o t i ng th a t Cha n g l e Ci t y o p i n i o n r e f e r e n c e d s a n c t i o n s d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o s u c h e mpl oy ees and
m e m b e rs) ; se e a lso 2 0 0 6 C o u n tryR e p o rt § 1 (f ) (in d ica tin g th a t p e rso n s w h o v io late popul at ion c ont r ol l i m i t s s om et i m es l os e j obs orpos i t i ons , and s om et i m es exper i ence
ex p u lsi o n fro m the C o m m u n ist P arty , m em b ersh ip i n w h ich i s req u ir ed fo r c e rt a in jo b s); 2005 Pr ofi l e at20 ( not i ng t hat“governm entw or ker s ” and “ empl oy ees of governm ent - ow ned ent i t i es . . . ar e s ubj ectt o es peci al l ys t r i ctcontr ol s w i t h r egar d to m aintaini ng t he bi r thl i m i t at i on pol i cy ”)
. T he B I A al s o not ed, as i thad i n I n r e J
- W
- S- , 24 I
. & N
. D ec. at190, t hat
ce rt ain S tat e D ep artm en t rep o rt s an d co rresp o n d en ce ind icated that ch il d ren b o rn a b roa d are notal w ay s count ed aga i ns ta fa m i l y , forexampl e, i f the chi l dr en ar e notr egi s t ered as perm anent r es i dent s of C hi na or ar e l i vi ng perm anent l yabr oad. S e e In re S -Y -G -, 2 4 I. &64

N . D e c . at 2 5 5 (c iti n g L e tter f ro m Ju lieta V a ll s N o yes , D ire c to r, O f f ice o f M u lti late ra l & G l obal A ffa i r s , B ur eau of D emocr acy , H um an R i ght s & L abor , U
. S. D ep’ tof St at e, t o R anda Z ag zo u g , D ep u tyC h ief C o u n sel, D H S -IC E (Jan
. 9 , 2 0 0 7 )). A t o ra l a rg u m e n t, c o u n se l f o r S h o w Y u n g G u o su b m itt e d th a t itw o u ld b e im p o ss ib le to av o id reg ist ering a c h il d w ith the C h ines e g o v ern m en t. A lth o u g h co u n sel claim ed rec o rd
s uppor tfort hi s ar gum ent , t he docum ent s he ci t es ( a) ar e fr om pr ovi nces ot hert han Fuj i an, ( b ) d e s c r i b e t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o rr e g i s t r a t i o n , a n d ( c ) d o n o ti n d i c a t e w h a tp e n a l t i e s , i f a n y, appl yforfai l i ng t o r egi s t era for ei gn- bor n chi l d. M or eover , other rec o r d evi dence runs count er to co u n sel’ s cont ent i on. See 2007 Pr ofi l e ¶¶ 112- 13 ( s ugges t i ng t hatpar ent s of A m er i can- bor n chi l dr en maychoos e nott o r egi s t er t hei r chi l dr en t o avoi d fami l y - pl anni ng
sa n c tio n s); 2 0 0 5 P ro f

ile a t 2 8 (n o tin g th a t u n re g iste re d A m e ric a n -b o rn c h ild re n , sp e c if ica lly chi l dr en w ho ar e A m er i can c i t i zens t r avel i ng on A m er i can pas s por t s , ar e not el i gi bl e forfr ee
e d u c a tio n in C h in a , b u t th a t m a n yp a re n ts p a ytu iti o n f o r t h e m to a tte n d p ri v a te s c h o o ls ). W e d o n o t o u rse lv e s atte m p t to re so lv e c o n f licts in re c o rd e v id e n c e , a ta s k la rg e ly
w ith in th e d isc r e tio n o f th e a g e n c y . W e c o n c lu d e o n lyth a t, be c a u se th e B IA p o in ted to
su b sta n tial e v id e n c e ra isin g d o u b ts a s to h o w a u th o rities in F u jian P ro v in c e a n d C h a n g le C ity
w oul d vi ew t he bi r t h of Show Y ung G uo’ s s econd c hi l d, an d b ecaus e the B I A di d not
over l ook anyr ecor d evi dence favor abl e t o pet i t ion er, it w as notcompel l ed t o r es ol ve the
v iolati o n step o f a n aly sis i n h er f av o r. W e n e ed n o t pu rsue the m att er f u rth er, ho w ev er, beca us e the B I A concl uded that , even i f i tw er e t o as s um e thatShow Y ung G uo hadT o t he ext ent t hat , i n Shou Y ung G uo v. G onzal es , w e mayhave a ppear ed t o have 30 equat ed mandat ed s t er i l i zat i on w i t h for ced st er i l i zat i on, s ee 463 F. 3d at115 ( obs ervi ng that Q & A H andbook “l en[t ] pow er ful pot ent i al s uppor t t o a fi ndi ng of cha nged ci r cumst ance s beca us e i t s t a t e s t h a t a p a r e n t o f t wo c h i l d r e n s u c h a s Guo wou l d , o n h e rr et ur n, be s ubj ect [ed] t o for ced s t er i l i zat i on”) , w e di d nothol d thatt he B I A w as compel l ed t o r eac h t hat sa m e c o n c lu sio n o n a f

u ll rev iew o f

th e re c o rd . In d e e d , w e r e m a n d e d th is c a se b e c a u se it 65 e sta b lish e d a p e rc e iv e d v io latio n , sh e f a iled to a d d u c e e v id e n c e d e m o n stra tin g a re a so n a b le pos s i bi l i tyof enf

or cementamount i ng t o per s ecut i on. ii. S h o w Y u n g G u o ’s F a ilu re to D e m o n stra te a R eas onabl e Pos s i bi l i t yof Forced St er i l i zat i on In f in d in g th a t th e F u

jian P ro v in c e a n d C h a n g le C ity d o c u m e n ts d id n o t d e m o n stra te
a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili tyth a t S h o w Y u n g G u o w o u ld f a c e f o rc e d ste riliza tio n o n re m o v a l to C hi na, the B I A es s ent i al l yr ei t er at ed the r eas oni n g e x p r e s s e di n J
- H
- S- and J
- W
- S- , di s cus s ed
su p ra a t [ 38- 44, 47- 50]
. F ir st, the B I A det erm i ned thatt he document s per t ai ni ng t o Z heng Y u H e di d not demonstr at e s uch a pos s i bi l i t ybeca us e theym ade no ment i on of any par t i cul ars anct i on or p e n a lty . S e c o n d , the B IA e x p lain e d th a t itw a s n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t th e re f e re n c e to

“ m a n d a to ry ” ste riliza tio n s in th e C h a n g le C it y Q & A H a n d b o o k sig n a led th a t o f f icia ls
w oul d empl oy“for ci bl e s t er i l i zat i on” bec aus e ( a) no m ent i on of s uch means w as m ade i n t he H an d b o o k , In re S -Y -G -, 2 4 I. & N
. D ec . at 25 7 (em p h asis in ori g inal); an d (b) d o cu m en tary evidence o n fam i l yplanni ng enfo rcem ent det ai l ed a v a rie ty o f no n-forci ble m eans — i ncent i ves , educat i on, s anct i ons — us ed t o achi eve mandat ed obj ect i ves , i d. at256 ( ci t i ng 2005 Pr ofi l e at20- 21; s ee also i d. at24- 26)
. I ndeed, t he B I A concl uded thatthe 30w a s th e B IA ’s r e sp o n sib ili ty to re v iew th e f u ll d o c u m e n tar yre c o rd a n d to m a k e a p p ro p ria te fac tual fi ndi ngs t her efr om . I tw as onl ybeca us e i t w as “notappar ent ” thatt he B I A had gi ven cons i der at i on t o t he cont ent s of the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce a nd C hangl e C i t y document s i n i t s i ni t i al deni a l o f r e o p e n i n g t h a t we o r d e r e d r e ma n d
. I d
. I t i s n o w c l e a r t h a t t h e BI A has done pr eci s el yw hati tpr evi ous l yfai l ed t o do, i
. e. , ful fi l l ed i t s “‘ dut yt o ex p li cit ly consi derany co u n tryco n d it ion s ev iden ce su b m itted b yan ap p li ca n t th at m aterial ly b ea rs on [h er] claim
. ’” Id . (q u o tin g P o ra d is o v a v . G o n z a le s , 4 2 0 F .3 d a t 8 1 ). 66 “s anct i ons ” appl i ed t o eff ect enfor cement w er e “l i kel yt o be ec onom i c ones , as des cr i pt i ons of thos e types of s anct i ons abound i n publ i s hed re por t s . ” I d. at 256 ( ci t i ng 2005 Pr ofi l e at 21 and refer encing d i scussi on i n J-H -S- and J- W -S- of S t at e D epart m ent report s o f “j ob l oss and dem oti on , l oss of p rom oti on s, exp uls i on from the C om m un i stP artyand at t end ant l oss
o f e m p loym en t, a n d d estruc ti o n o f p rop erty ” a s typ ical san cti o n s). A s fo r “o cc asio n al[]”
re p o rts o f

f o rc e d ste riliza tio n , th e B I A o b se rv e d th a t, be c a u se th e se lac k e d “ d e tails a s to
w h e n , w h e re , an d h o w o f ten ,” it c o u ld n o t r e liab lyin f e r th e re f ro m a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili ty thatShow Y ung G uo w oul d fa ce s uch per s ecut i on on r emoval t o C hi na. I d. ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h is c o m p o rts w ith o u r h o ld in g s in R a m sa m e a c h ire v . A sh c ro f t, 3 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 7 8 , a n d Jia n X in g H u a n g v . IN S , 4 2 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 , re q u irin g a p e tit io n e r’s w e llf o u n d e d f e a r t o b e s u p p o rt e d b yre lia b le , s p e c if ic , o b je c tiv e , a n d s o lid e v id e n c e . I n l i ghtof t he B I A havi ng conduct ed t he r ecor d r evi ew r equi r ed byourr emand or der and havi ng poi nt ed t o s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor ti t s fi nding thatShow Y ung G uo has notdemonstr at ed a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hats he w oul d fac e for ced st er i l i zat i on on r emoval t o C hi na, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe B I A w as co m pel l ed t o fi nd t hats he demonstr at ed pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um ort hatt he deni al of her m ot i on t o r eopen w as an abus e of67

di s cr et i on. (c ) S h o w Y u n g G u o ’s F a ilu re to D e m o n stra te E l i gi bi l i t y for R el i ef fr om R emoval as an A s y l ee R efuge e Show Y ung G uo s ubm i t s t hat , even i f s he fai l ed t o demonstr at e el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um bas ed on herow n fea rof futur e s t er i l i zat i on, the B I A s houl d have reo p ened he rr emoval p r oc e e di n g s t o c o n s i d e rh e re l i g i b i l i t yf o rr e l i e f a s a n a s y l e e r e f

u g e e . S e e 8 U. S
. C. § 1158( b) ( 3) ( A ) ; 8 C
. F. R
. § 1208. 21( b) , ( c)
. I n s uppor t , s he as s ert s t hata vi s a pet i t i on w as fi l ed on her behal f by her hus band, w ho w as gr ant ed as y l um on M ay20, 2005. T he ar gum ent i s unper s uas i ve bec aus e, as t he B I A fo u n d , S h ow Y ung G uo has notoffe r ed anyevi dence thathervi s a pet i t i on has been a ppr oved s o as t o demonstr at e pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yforr el i ef f ro m re m o v a l. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .2 1 (c ) (p ro v id in g f o r v isa s to b e g ra n ted in a p p ro p ria te
c ir c u m s tan c e s to re lativ e s o f p e rso n s g ra n ted a sy lu m ). T h e o m iss io n is p a rticu lar ly
s i gni fi canti n t hi s cas e bec aus e, as the governm entnot es , Show Y u n g G u o ’s vi s a pet i t i on
w as , i n fac t , deni ed i n J ul y2006 bas ed on herfai l ur e t o pr ove heri dent it y . See i d. § 1208. 21( b)
. A t or al ar gum ent , couns el as s ert ed t hat Show Y ung G uo w as s t i l l endea vor i ng t o s ecur e a vi s a as an as y l ee r el at i ve, buthe conc eded thatno favor ab le rul i ng had bee n
o b ta in e d s in c e th e J u ly 2 0 0 6 d e n ia l. U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e i dent i fyno abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he B I A ’ s deni al of S h o w Y u n g G u o ’s m o ti o n to reo p en . C f. P ed rero s v . K eisl er, 50 3 F .3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 6 (2d C ir
. 2007) ( concl udi ng, i n cont extof pendi ng appea l of deni al of I
- 130 vi s a appl i cat i on fi l ed by68

pet i t i oner ’ s s p o u se, t hatt her e i s “no bas i s forobl i gat i ng t he age ncyt o gr antcont i nuance s pendi ng adj udi cat i on of an i m m i gr ant vi s a pet i t i on w hen t her e i s a r el i abl e bas i s t o concl ude th a t th e v is a p e titio n o r t h e a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s w ill u ltim a te ly b e d e n ie d ” ). b. T he B I A A ct ed W i t hi n I t s D i s cr et i on i n D eny i ng R econs i der at i on Show Y ung G uo as ks t hi s courtt o r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deni al of herm ot i on t o r econs i der i t s A ugus t2, 2 0 0 7 deni al of herm ot i on t o r eopen. A m ot i on t o r econs i derm us ts peci fy
err or s of fa ct o r law i n t he cha l l enged BIA deci s i on and mustbe s uppor t ed byper t i nent
a u th o r i ty . S e e 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 ( b ) ; K h a n v . G o n z a l e s , 4 9 5 F
. 3 d 3 1 , 3 6 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. We
r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o r econs i derforabus e of di s cr et i on. I d. at36. W e i dent i fy
n o n e in th is c a se b e c a u se S h o w Y u n g G u o ’s m o tio n d id n o t p o in t to e rro rs o f f a c t o r la w ; it
s i m pl y rep eat ed ar gum ent s aboutchange d countr ycondi t i ons , per cei ved vi ol at i ons of popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es , and t he r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y of for ced s t er i l i zat i on on r emoval that the B IA h ad alread y rejected
. S ee Jin M ing L iu v. G o n za les, 4 3 9 F
. 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t p e tit io n e r c a n n o t se c u re re c o n sid e ra tio n sim p ly b yre p e a tin g “ a rg u m e n ts thatt he B I A has pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed”)
. T o the ext entp et i t i onerpoi nt ed t o addi t i onal
ev iden ce o b tai n ed o n the In terne t t o su p p o rt h er argu m en ts, w e can n o t con clud e tha t th e B IA
comm i t t ed an e r r orof fa ctbas ed on evi dence thatw as notpar tof t h e rec or d atthe t i m e of the rul i ng. A s t he B I A obs erved, pet i t i onerfai l ed to e xpl ai n w hythi s addi t i onal evi dence
w as nots ubm i t t ed att he t i m e of the 2006 r emand. See I n r e Show Y ung G uo, A 72 461 714 ( B
. I
. A
. Feb. 27, 2008)
. I n anyevent , t he B I A r evi ew ed the addi t i onal evi dence and69

det erm i ned thati tw as no m or e per s uas i ve than thatpr evi ous l ycons i der ed atthe vi ol at i on
o r en fo rce m en t st ep s o f a n aly sis. B ec au se w e ide n ti fyn o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in the B IA ’s deni al of Show Y ung G uo’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w e deny t hi s m uch of herpet i t i on f o r re v iew f

o r la c k o f

m e rit. I I I . C oncl usi on T o su m m a riz e , w e c o n c lu d e : (1) B ec au se th e B IA fo u n d w ide v arian ce s in h o w p o p u lat ion co n tr o l p o lic ies are
u n d e rsto o d a n d e n f

o rc e d th ro u g h o u t C h in a , itre a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e “ w e llfounded f

ear ” r equi r ementof 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101( a) ( 4 2 ) is nots us cept i bl e t o a
c o n stru c tio n th a t ca teg o ric a llya f f o rd s o r d e n ies re f

u g e e sta tu s to a ll C h in e se n a tio n a ls
w ith m o re th a n o n e c h ild
. (2 ) T o th e e x ten t th e B IA h a s e m p lo y e d a th re e -ste p e v id e n tiary an a ly sis to f a c ili tate its
c ase- by -cas e i den t i fi cat i on of tho se al i ens w i t h m ore t han on e chil d w ho po sses s a
w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n re m o v a l to C h in a , w e d isc e rn n o leg a l er ro r in thatfr amew or k. Speci fi cal l y , w e do notunder s t and the ana l y s i s t o i m pos e a he avi er b u rd e n o f

p ro o f f o r th e d e m o n stra tio n o f a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r th a n th e “ re a so n a b le pos s i bi l i t y ” s t andar d i dent i fi ed bythe Supr eme C our t i n I N S v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U
. S. at440. ( 3) B eca us e the B I A di d not over l ook r el evantevi dence orcomm i tanyotherl egal err or in determ i ning t hat none of the peti t i on ers no w befo re the co urtcon vinci n g ly70

d e mon s t r a t e d a we l l
- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f f o r c e d s t e r i l i z a t i o n o n r e mo v a l t o Ch i n a , we
re v iew th a t f

a c tu a l f in d in g o n ly f

o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . A s th e B IA ’s f in d in g is
s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n eac h cas e, part i cul ar l yon the cr i t i cal poi ntthat no pet i t i onerhas demonstr at ed a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t ythathe ors he w i l l fac e for ced ste riliza tio n o n re m o v a l to C h in a , w e id e n tifyn o e rro r in its d e n ials o f a sy lu m to pet i t i oner s J i an H ui Shao and J i W en S h i o r in i t s deni al of r eopeni ng or
r econs i der at i on t o pet i t i onerShow Y ung G uo. (4 ) W ith re s p e c t to p e tit io n e r S h o w Y u n g G u o , the B IA a c ted w ith in its d isc re tio n in det erm i ni ng t hats he fai l ed t o adduce s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tr eopeni ng on t he
a lte rn a tiv e g ro u n d th a t s h e q u a lif ie d f o r r e lie f f ro m re m o v a l a s a n a s y le e re f u g e e . A ccor di ngl y , t he pet i t i ons forr evi ew ar e D ENI ED .