Opinion ID: 4202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Resistances

Text: The BIA has held that acts that thwart the goals of the family planning policy and which are viewed with disfavor by Chinese officials implementing the policy, including acts involving the use of force, constitute “other resistance” to the policy. Matter of M-F-W- & L-G-, 24 I & N Dec. 633, 638 (BIA 2008); see also Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2005). The BIA failed to explain, however, why Yang-Lin’s conduct did not constitute resistance to the policy under the BIA’s own standards. Accordingly, we remand to allow the BIA an opportunity to explain why YangLin’s altercation did not demonstrate “other resistance” to the family planning policy, and to state specifically whether physical resistance must be accompanied by verbal resistance. See Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2007) (“A court of appeals is not generally empowered to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matter being reviewed and to reach its own conclusions based on such an inquiry. . . . [T]he proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.”).