Opinion ID: 2567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Need for Case-by-Case Analysis to Identify Aliens Who Demonstrate a Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution Based on the Birth of More than One Child

Text: On June 7, 2007, a three-member panel of the BIA addressed the question posed by this court in its remand order: is having two children in China ... sufficient grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution? Jian Hui Shao v. BIA, 465 F.3d at 501. The BIA determined that the question admitted no categorical answer; it could be resolved only on a case-by-case basis. [A]n alien who has established that he or she has had two children in China may qualify as a refugee if the evidence presented establishes, on a case-by-case basis, that the births violated family planning policies in that alien's local province, municipality, or other locally-defined area, and that current local family planning enforcement efforts would give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution because of the violation. In re J-H-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 197-98 (emphasis added). The response, which presumes an alien's demonstration of a genuine subjective fear of future persecution, focuses on the showing necessary to demonstrate that such a fear is sufficiently objectively reasonable to allow the alien to claim refugee status. The BIA concluded that the objective reasonableness of such a fear could be best determined by reviewing the record evidence in three steps. The first step, or starting point for determining whether there is objective evidence supporting this fear [of future persecution,] is proof of the details of the family planning policy relevant to each individual case. Id. at 198. The BIA explained that this step is necessary because, [a]lthough in general China's family planning policy has been termed a `one child' policy, id., in practice it is apparent that deviations from the general rule of `one child' persist, id. For example, certain geographic and ethnic factors may prompt exceptions to the `one child' policy. Id. at 199. Thus, the petitioner first had to establish[ ] the details of the specific `policy' applicable in his or her case. Id. At the second step of analysis, the agency would consider whether the facts in the record establish that the alien violated the policy applicable to his circumstances. Id. By way of illustration, the BIA noted that if, at the first step, an alien established that no exceptions to the one child policy applied in the particular case, the second step inquiry reduced to whether the alien had demonstrated that he or she had, in fact, fathered or given birth to more than one child, in violation of that policy. Id. This latter burden could be carried by introducing birth certificates or other documents evidencing the children's births. See id. The BIA specifically noted that, although it identified these first two steps of analysis in a case involving children born in China, the inquiries were especially relevant in cases where the alien seeking relief from removal relied on the birth of children in the United States. See id. Assuming that an alien could satisfy the policy and violation steps of analysis, a third step required him to establish that the violation of the family planning policy would be punished in the local area in a way that would give rise to an objective fear of future persecution. [5] Id. The BIA explained that this was necessary because enforcement of the [one-child] policy varies greatly in China, depending on locality. Id. at 200. The BIA further noted that while incentives and pressure were used to achieve compliance with birth control limitations, id. at 200, national policy proscribed the use of physical force, id. at 203. Thus, it was an alien's burden to adduce some evidence showing that he or she personally faces a well-founded fear of persecutiongenerally, forced abortion or sterilization, id. at 200 (emphasis added), or economic sanctions so severe as to rise to the level of persecution, id. at 200-01 (noting that determination of when economic sanctions are so severe as to constitute persecution is issue best addressed on a case-by-case basis (citing Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 67, 70 (2d Cir.2002))). Having explained its reasoning, the BIA summarized its response to the remand's legal query as follows: In sum, the question whether the birth of two children in China gives rise to a well-founded fear of persecution depends on the facts of each case, including, in particular, the details of local family planning policies, proof that an alien violated such policies, and evidence that local enforcement efforts against the violation will rise to the level of persecution. Evidence bearing on all of these factors must, taken together, establish that a reasonable person in the respondent's circumstances would fear persecution if he returned to his home country. Id. at 201 (citing, inter alia, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)).