Opinion ID: 2977704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sale of Falun Gong Materials

Text: Although this claim is slightly stronger than the IJ recognized, the record does not compel rejection of the IJ’s conclusion. Lin does not practice Falun Gong—he only worked in a bookstore that sold texts about the group’s teachings. Aside from Lin’s testimony, which the IJ found to be not credible, there is no evidence that authorities imputed Falun Gong beliefs to Lin or that they would do so eight years later. See Abdulnoor v. Ashcroft, 107 F. App’x 594, 595 (6th Cir. 2004). Chinese authorities, by Lin’s own admission, did not arrest or persecute him in the five months after he returned to Guan Tou, which further undercuts his claim. Finally, the IJ perceptively noted that Lin’s father continues to live unscathed in another part of the Fujian province, which suggests Lin has no reason to fear future persecution. Gumbol v. INS, 815 F.2d 406, 413 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that the absence of mistreatment is relevant to determining whether an asylum-seeker’s fear of future persecution is well-founded). B. Lin’s Violation of Marriage and Birth Permit Laws Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Lin does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution on the basis of his violation of China’s marriage and birth-permit laws. There is no presumption that all PRC nationals who have children will be persecuted, 8 U.S.C. § - 11 - No. 08-3138 Lin v. Holder 1101(a)(42)(B), and to establish eligibility for asylum based on family planning policy in the PRC, petitioner must prove the details of a coercive family policy in his home province or city, that he has violated that policy, and that violating the policy would subject him to harm rising to the level of persecution. Matter of J-H-S-, I&N Dec. 196, 199-200 (BIA 2007). As the IJ observed, Lin’s wife remains in China and apparently experienced no legal problems as a result of the pregnancy or in the years after their child was born. That so much time has passed without any sign that authorities are still preoccupied with Lin’s relatively minor violations of family planning policies further indicates that Lin has no objective ground to fear persecution. Even Lin seemingly concedes this, testifying that were it not for the Falun Gong materials, he would face only fines for his illegal marriage. In denying Lin’s petition for review with respect to this claim, this court need not do more than observe that Lin failed to supply the family planning policy of the Fujian province or his home town.4 The 2005 State Department Country Report indicates that, at worst, Lin possibly faces fines relating to his PRC citizen child. Lin provided no compelling evidence calling the Country Report’s conclusions into doubt or indicating that the application of family planning policies to his circumstances might result in persecution—let alone enough evidence to compel us to reverse the IJ. Thus, Lin has failed to demonstrate he is eligible for asylum. 4 Instead, Lin submitted the family-planning policies of a province and of a town he never lived in. The only relevant evidence that Lin did submit was a lengthy affidavit by the late John S. Aird, a retired demographer, which this court and the BIA have found unpersuasive in previous cases. See, e.g., Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d at 652-53; see also Matter of C-C-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 899, 901-3 (BIA 2006). - 12 - No. 08-3138 Lin v. Holder C. Lin’s American-Born Children Having left his wife and first child in China, Lin took up with a girlfriend in the United States. Prior to his hearing in Immigration Court, Lin fathered an American-born child, whom he and his girlfriend sent to China. Although Lin could have alleged that this child would be counted under the one-child policy, further supporting his fear of future persecution, he and his counsel did not make this argument in Immigration Court.5 Only while his appeal was pending with the BIA did Lin argue for the first time, in a motion to reopen and remand, that changed personal circumstances—the birth of his second child in the United States and the fact his girlfriend was pregnant with his third child—gave rise to a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen and remand a removal order, and we review its denial for an abuse of discretion. Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003). The BIA abuses its discretion only when its decision “was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005). The BIA declared that the evidence submitted by Lin failed to demonstrate that his second 5 In Immigration Court, Lin did not contend this second child would be counted under the one-child policy or would result in future persecution, but the IJ nevertheless commented that the fact that Lin sent the child to live in China undercut his purported fear of returning. We affirm the IJ’s denial of Lin’s application for the reasons discussed in part IV.B supra, but separately note Lin’s decision to send his second child, who is a United States citizen, to live in China, does not necessarily undermine his application for asylum. The IJ’s conclusion hinges on the unsubstantiated assumption that Lin, a Chinese citizen, and his U.S.-citizen child are subject to the same risks. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that the ongoing safety of family members in petitioner’s country of origin undermines an application for asylum when family members are “similarly situated” and are “subject to similar risk”). - 13 - No. 08-3138 Lin v. Holder child would be counted under China’s one-child policy, or that he would be persecuted in the event that the child is counted under the policy. Petitioner alleges that the BIA abused its discretion by improperly relying on In re J-W-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 185 (BIA 2007). The BIA cited In re J-W-S- in denying Lin’s motion, observing that “the evidence [Lin submitted was] insufficient to meet his burden.” Although petitioner is correct that In re J-W-S- does not establish a bright-line rule precluding Chinese asylum applicants from establishing future harm on the basis of American-born children, the BIA order did not cite the case for this proposition. Rather, the BIA cited In re J-W-S- in evaluating the sufficiency of Lin’s evidence.6 Lin relied on precisely the same evidence as the petitioner in that case, including the 2004 Aird affidavit, documents about the family planning policies of Changle City in the Fujian province from 1995 and 1999, and an administrative decision from the Department of Family-Planning Administration in the Fujian province dating back to 2003. See id. at 189-190. These documents are no more compelling in this case,7 and the BIA did not clearly abuse its discretion in finding that they were inapplicable. 6 For this reason, Xiao Kui Lin v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2009) is not on point. In that case, the Second Circuit vacated a BIA order that incorrectly characterized In re J-W-S- as holding that “China has no national policy of forcibly sterilizing those who have broken the population control laws by having children in other countries.” Id. at 221. Indeed, the Second Circuit acknowledged that “the reasoning in . . . J-W-S- . . . could in many circumstances support a prediction that the BIA would reject an asylum applicant presenting evidence sufficiently similar to that analyzed in these three precedential cases.” Id. at 224. In fact, the Second Circuit has relied on In re J-W-S in other cases for this exact proposition. See, e.g., Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008). 7 As discussed in n.3 supra, we have previously questioned the Aird affidavit’s import. The problems with the Aird affidavit are especially significant in cases like this one, as it does not contain even anecdotal evidence indicating that Chinese nationals who have American-born children have ever been sterilized or otherwise persecuted. Lin’s additional evidence is also problematic: Lin never - 14 - No. 08-3138 Lin v. Holder Id. at 192 (“[T]he evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Chinese government has a national policy of requiring forced sterilization of parents who return with a second child born outside of China.”). Other courts have declined to vacate similar orders of the BIA involving similarly situated petitioners. See Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640, 654 (6th Cir. 2008); Aie Wu v. Mukasey, No. 07-3148, 2008 WL 885844, at  (2d Cir. Mar. 31, 2008) (referring to the 2007 State Department Report in finding “Chinese regulations stipulate that children born overseas are not counted for purposes of administering the family planning policy”); Song Wang v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 615, 622-23 (7th Cir. 2007) (affirming BIA’s determination that applicants did not establish there would be any penalty for United States citizen children, even if applicants were to return to PRC with their children). Even if In re J-W-S- does not depend on a categorical rule denying applications for asylum that rely on fear of Chinese persecution of those with foreign-born children, it does establish that the evidence relied upon by the petitioner in that case is necessarily inadequate on its own to establish that American-born children will be counted under the one-child policy, or that the parents of multiple American-born children have any objective reason to fear they will be persecuted. In any event, Lin gives absolutely no justification for failing to make this argument sooner. Lin’s second child was already born when he testified in Immigration Court, and all of the evidence resided in Changle City; and the 2004 administrative decision is controverted by the State Department’s 2005 and 2007 reports, which conclude that children born overseas are not typically counted under the one-child policy. In re J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 190-91; see also id. at 193 (discussing the Fujian province in particular). Lin does not supplement this insufficient evidence with other materials or provide any basis for believing that his children will be counted under the one-child policy such that he may be persecuted. - 15 - No. 08-3138 Lin v. Holder he cites was available at that time. To demonstrate that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to remand, Lin would have to show the evidence at issue “is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). The only evidence Lin cites that was unavailable at the time of his Immigration Court proceeding is the conception and birth of his third child. At oral argument, Lin’s counsel argued the BIA abused its discretion in not addressing or providing any reason for declining Lin’s motion to remand with respect to Lin’s third child. Although petitioner’s brief mentioned the motion to remand in a couple of instances, these references were not accompanied by a developed argument and therefore it was waived. United States v. Phinazee, 515 F.3d 511, 520 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d 623, 638 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Mick, 263 F.3d 553, 567 (6th Cir. 2001). Even if the argument had not been waived, it is unnecessary to remand in cases like this one where we can predict with confidence that the agency would reach the same result absent this error. The BIA’s reference to In re J-W-S- establishes that it believed Lin’s evidence was insufficient to show a likelihood that he would be persecuted on account of his children. The petitioner in In re J-W-S- was similarly situated in that he had two American-born children. Although that petitioner did not also have a child born in China as Lin does, Lin did not claim that this difference is relevant in his motion to remand and none of the evidence he submitted suggests that it is material. Lin is not permitted to supplement the record here, Huang, 523 F.3d at 656, and the quality of the evidence he did submit to the BIA demonstrates the futility of remanding to the BIA for further proceedings. See Chen v. United States, 471 F.3d 315, 339 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The overarching test for deeming a remand - 16 - No. 08-3138 Lin v. Holder futile . . . is when the reviewing court can ‘confidently predict’ that the agency would reach the same decision absent the errors that were made”).