Opinion ID: 2567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jian Hui Shao

Text: In February 2002, Jian Hui Shao, a native of Fuzhou City in China's Fujian Province, attempted to enter the United States unlawfully. In subsequent removal proceedings, Jian Hui Shao conceded removability but applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Jian Hui Shao asserted that he feared forcible sterilization in China because he had fathered two daughters in that country and Chinese law prohibited him, a non-agricultural worker, from having more than one child. To demonstrate the reasonableness of his fearand to explain his abandonment of his wife in China only weeks after discovering her second pregnancyJian Hui Shao testified that he had been beaten and jailed by Chinese officials after his wife missed a gynecological examination intended to ensure her compliance with family planning policies and he refused to disclose her whereabouts. Identifying various inconsistencies and implausibilities in Jian Hui Shao's account, the immigration judge (IJ) found him not credible in all respects but one: the fact that he now had two children in China. See In re Jian Hui Shao, No. A 79 759 247, at 14-15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2003). The IJ denied petitioner relief from removal, a determination summarily upheld by the BIA on initial direct review. See In re Jian Hui Shao, No. A 79 759 247 (B.I.A. June 28, 2004).
On Jian Hui Shao's initial petition for review by this court, we concluded that the agency's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. BIA, 465 F.3d at 500-01. Nevertheless, we remanded the case for further agency consideration of the question under what circumstances, if any, having two children in China is sufficient grounds for a well-founded fear of future persecution. Id. at 501. In so ruling, we noted that, in Jian Xing Huang v. INS , this court had expressed skepticism as to whether an alien with two children born in the United States could demonstrate a well-founded fear of forced sterilization on removal to China absent specific factsbeyond the general conditions in Chinagiving rise to his subjective fear. Jian Hui Shao v. BIA, 465 F.3d at 501 (citing Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d at 129). Nevertheless, because Jian Hui Shao's children were born in and live in China,  we considered the possibility that such circumstances might warrant a different assessment of the objective reasonableness of petitioner's professed fear. Id. (emphasis added). Noting that the INA's definition of a refugee did not clearly resolve the issue and that the BIAthe agency charged with the INA's enforcement and thus entitled to deference with regard to the statute's interpretationhad not previously considered the point, we decided to remand. See id. at 501-03 (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 416 F.3d 184, 189-91 (2d Cir.2005)). In making that determination, we noted the far-reaching implications of any decision: Jian Hui Shao's circumstances were shared by innumerable potential asylum applicants and the grant of asylum to all persons with more children than allowed by China's family planning policies would raise complicated foreign and public policy questions. Id. at 502. Thus, we observed that a precedential decision by the BIA or the Supreme Court of the United States was desirable to assure uniformity in such cases. Id. We anticipated that the remand question might not admit a single answer applicable throughout China. We observed that the BIA was better prepared than federal circuit courts to evaluate whether different regions of China enforce divergent family planning policies and whether applicants from diverse locales should accordingly receive different treatment in asylum proceedings. Id.