Opinion ID: 789446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BIA Precedent

Text: 15 Because of the incremental development of the BIA's law on forced abortion and involuntary sterilization pursuant to coercive population control policies, it is best to address the history of the BIA's precedential decisions and the history of Qu's case before the agency chronologically. Before 1997, claims based on forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations as part of the population control policy of China were governed by Matter of Chang , 20 I. & N. Dec. 38, 38(BIA 1989). There, the BIA held that [i]mplementation of the one couple, one child policy of the Chinese Government is not on its face persecutive and does not create a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one of the five reasons enumerated in ... 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (1982), even to the extent that involuntary sterilizations may occur. Id. In response to this interpretation, Congress, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), amended the definition of refugee to include explicit protection for those who endured or feared forced abortions, involuntary sterilization, or other persecution on account of resistance to coercive population control policies. IIRIRA § 601(a)(1), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). 16 On December 18, 1996, the BIA abandoned its interpretation in Matter of Chang in light of IIRIRA's amendment and held that an applicant's forced sterilization for violation of China's population control policies constitutes past persecution. In re X__P__T__, 21 I. & N. Dec. 634, 636 (BIA 1996). Under the regulations applicable at the time, this presumption could be rebutted in only one way: 5 if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that since the time the persecution occurred conditions in the applicant's country ... have changed to such an extent that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of being persecuted if he were to return. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (1996). As the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) presented no evidence of changed country conditions at the hearing below, the BIA determined that the presumption had not been rebutted. In re X__P__T__, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 636. Furthermore, recognizing that [f]or any fiscal year, not more than a total of 1,000 refugees may be admitted ... or granted asylum ... [for] persecution for resistance to coercive population control methods, 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(5), the BIA decided that it will grant the applicant's application for population control-based asylum conditioned upon a subsequent administrative determination by the Service that a number is available.... In re X__P__T__, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 637. 17 Additionally, the BIA recognized that it was required to reach the question of withholding in In re X__P__T__. Id. at 637. It concluded that [b]ecause the conditional nature of our asylum grant does not ensure that the applicant will be one of the 1,000 individuals who actually obtains asylum, we find it necessary to reach the issue of withholding of deportation. Id. The BIA went on to hold that the applicant was entitled under C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2) (1996) to a regulatory presumption. Id. Because, as in the asylum context, this presumption could be rebutted only if country conditions had changed — specifically only if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that conditions in the country have changed to such an extent that it is no longer more likely than not that the applicant would be so persecuted there, id. — and because the presumption was unrebutted in this record the BIA granted the application for withholding of deportation. In re X__P__T__, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 638. 18 On June 4, 1997, the BIA, in In re C__Y__Z__, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915, 918 (BIA 1997), reaffirmed its decision in In re X__P__T. In In re C__Y__Z__, the INS conceded that involuntary sterilization constituted past persecution, but it contended that in addition an applicant needed to a have a well-founded fear of future persecution or to demonstrate that the involuntary sterilization was carried out in such a way as to amount to an `atrocious form' of persecution. Id. at 919. The BIA rejected this argument and held that [t]he regulatory presumption may be rebutted only by a showing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that since the time the persecution occurred, conditions in the applicant's country have changed to such an extent that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to the home country. Id. The BIA held that because the Service [had] not alleged or presented evidence of changed country conditions, it had not rebutted the presumption and therefore the applicant had established his eligibility for asylum. Id. The BIA further held that, as the applicant had established past persecution, he was entitled to a presumption with respect to withholding of deportation as well, and, because the INS had done nothing to rebut the presumption, it granted that relief also. 6 Id. 19 On December 6, 2000, pursuant to a final rule which became effective on January 5, 2001, the regulations concerning the rebuttable presumption for asylum and withholding claims changed. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (2001); 65 Fed.Reg. 76,121, 76,133 (Dec. 6, 2000); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2005). The new regulations allowed the INS to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution by proving by a preponderance of the evidence either a fundamental change in circumstances or the possibility of relocation within the country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (2001). Because of this change in the regulations, the IJ in Qu's case decided on October 9, 2001 that personal circumstances can be considered in changed circumstances and I find that once you're sterilized you can't be sterilized again. He therefore held that Qu no longer had a well-founded fear of persecution. 20 On April 10, 2002, before Qu's case reached the BIA, the Board decided another forced sterilization case, this time under the new regulation governing rebuttal of the past persecution presumption. In re G__C__L__, 23 I. & N. Dec. 359 (BIA 2002). However, because the INS did not offer any rebuttal evidence during the hearing below and has not submitted any response to the applicant's motion, the BIA concluded that the presumption was not rebutted and granted both asylum, subject to the statutory numerical limitation, and withholding of deportation. Id. at 361. 21 On February 13, 2003, the BIA decided Qu's case in a non-precedential, one-member opinion. The BIA held that because Qu remained in China for eleven years after the sterilization and had no reason to fear returning to China until September 2000 when the Chinese government discovered his religious activities, 7 he was not entitled to withholding of removal. 22 On May 23, 2003, the BIA issued its first precedential decision under the new regulations, in a case in which the INS opposed granting asylum and withholding on the ground that the applicant no longer had a well-founded fear of future persecution. In re Y__T__L__, 23 I. & N. Dec. 601 (BIA 2003). Like the IJ in Qu's case, the IJ in In re Y__T__L__ held that, given that the forced sterilization had already been performed and that no evidence regarding any possible future persecution had been presented, there had been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer had a well-founded fear of persecution. Id. at 603. The BIA, however, found this interpretation paradoxical: 23 To some extent, therefore, this case presents a dilemma. The respondent has, without question, sustained past persecution, which makes him eligible for asylum.... On the other hand, the respondent has no reasonable basis to fear this form of persecution in the future, based on the very fact that he has already been persecuted. 24 In re Y__T__L__, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 606. The BIA resolved this dilemma decisively, both by recognizing the special nature of the persecution at issue here and by giving full force to the intent of Congress. Id. On that basis, it held that in such cases the regulatory presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution arising from such past persecution has not been rebutted. Id. at 608. 25 First, the BIA noted that forced sterilization is a unique kind of persecution. In addition to the physical and psychological trauma that is common to many forms of persecution, sterilization involves drastic and emotionally painful consequences that are unending: The couple is forever denied a pro-creative life together. As the BIA explained, 26 The act of forced sterilization should not be viewed as a discrete onetime act, comparable to a term in prison, or an incident of severe beating or even torture. Coerced sterilization is better viewed as a permanent and continuing act of persecution that has deprived a couple of the natural fruits of conjugal life, and the society and comfort of the child or children that might eventually have been born to them. 27 Id. at 607; see id. (describing coerced sterilization as persecution that is profound and permanent). On this basis, the BIA held that such a permanent and continuous form of persecution requires a special result under the asylum regulations, namely that applicants who have suffered forced or involuntary sterilization necessarily have an inherent well-founded fear of future persecution because such persons will be persecuted for the remainder of their lives due to the sterilization to which they have been subjected. 8 28 The BIA also explained that the history of the coerced population control provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) supported its view. Id. at 607. As discussed above, it is undisputed that Congress amended the definition of refugee in order to overrule Matter of Chang, 20 I. & N. Dec. 38, 38 (BIA 1989), the BIA's interpretation of asylum law that denied relief to those subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations by virtue of coercive population control policies. The BIA noted that, in doing so, Congress intended to create asylum eligibility for past victims of family planning practices. In re Y__T__L__, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 607; see also 142 Cong. Rec. H2629, H2633 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1996) (statement of Rep. Christopher Smith) (calling the BIA's interpretation under Matter of Chang novel and bizarre). Furthermore, as Congress specifically provided that persons who suffered involuntary sterilization shall be deemed to have been persecuted, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), the BIA found it could not categorically deny them asylum, as it would have been forced to do if it adopted the INS's theory that, because the particular act of persecution eliminates any threat of future persecution, such persons could never establish a fear of future persecution. In re Y__T__L__, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 607; see id. at 605(explaining that the Immigration Judge's rationale could lead to the anomalous result that the act of persecution itself would also constitute the change in circumstances that would result in denial of asylum to persons such as the respondent). Therefore, the BIA granted the applicant asylum subject to the statutory numerical limitation and, on the basis of the same reasoning, also granted him withholding of removal. Id. at 608.