Opinion ID: 811010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coercive Family Planning

Text: Ms. Lin also asserts that changed country conditions concerning coercive family planning warranted reopening her proceedings. She challenges the BIA’s determination that the documents issued by officials in Shou Zhan Town did not refer to the use of force when referring to sterilizations and abortions, but instead used social compensation fees, check-ups, and voluntary programs to encourage compliance with family planning policies.2 Ms. Lin maintains that the background 2 The BIA assumed, without deciding, that those documents were authentic. Admin. R. at 11 n.5. -6- documents demonstrated that the use of force was authorized in Fujian Province, where family-planning authorities were authorized to take “remedial measures” to remedy “out-of-plan” pregnancies. Aplt. Br. at 44 (italics and internal quotation marks omitted). She argues that the expression “remedial measures” is the same as “compulsory abortion.” Id. (italics and internal quotation marks omitted). For this proposition, she relies on the 2009 Annual Report from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (2009 Annual Report). But she submitted to the BIA only 20 pages of the 300-page 2009 Annual Report. The BIA therefore found it difficult “to assess the information contained in the report or to rely on the report to reach any valid conclusions.” Admin R. at 8 n.3. More specifically for our review, the language quoted in her brief is not from the 2009 Annual Report. See Aplt. Br. at 44 (quoting Admin. R. at 438). We decline to search through the administrative record to locate support for Ms. Lin’s argument. See Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1246 n.13 (10th Cir. 2003) (stating court of appeals will not search the record in an effort to determine if an argument is supported). Even so, Ms. Lin does not challenge the BIA’s requirement that the evidence be geographically specific, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the family-planning policies for Ms. Lin’s geographic area did not authorize forced sterilization or abortion. -7- Ms. Lin also complains that the BIA required her to produce evidence that was more recent than 2009, while relying on the 2007 U.S. Department of State Profile on Asylum Claims and Country Conditions from China (2007 Profile) to conclude that conditions had not changed between 2003 and 2011.3 We need not address Ms. Lin’s claim that the documents pertaining to her hometown were sufficiently current because as discussed above, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that those documents did not authorize the use of force.4 Finally, Ms. Lin asserts that her changed personal circumstances warrant reopening. Although changed personal circumstances may be relevant to eligibility for asylum, they do not satisfy the requirements for reopening removal proceedings. Wei, 545 F.3d at 1250, 1255-57. 3 The BIA relied on the 2007 Profile as articulating “the provisions of China’s national family planning law.” Admin. R. at 10. The BIA may properly rely on State Department country reports. Yuk v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1222, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2004). 4 Because we uphold the BIA’s determination that Ms. Lin failed to produce material evidence of changed country conditions, we do not consider whether China’s family-planning policies would apply to her in the same way they would to a family whose children were born in China. See, e.g., Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 216 (BIA 2010) (noting that alien had “not presented any evidence of a Chinese national who has been subjected to forcible sterilization or sanctions rising to the level of persecution after returning to China with two United States citizen children”), abrogated on other grounds by Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). -8-