Opinion ID: 66102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lin’s 2001 Asylum Application

Text: Lin is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China who entered the United States through Los Angeles in 1990. Administrative Record at 817. Because he lacked a valid entry document, he was briefly detained and ordered to 1 Lin’s case predates the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), which renamed deportation and exclusion proceedings as removal proceedings. In this case, we employ the post-IIRIRA term “withholding of removal” as that term is used by the parties and there is no functional difference between the terms. 2 appear at a hearing before an IJ to determine his immigration status. Id. at 150910. Lin failed to appear for the hearing and was ordered removed in absentia in 1991. Id. at 1394-95. In 2000, Lin filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, alleging that he did not receive notice of the 1991 hearing. Id. at 1386-87. The IJ granted the motion to reopen, and a new hearing date was set. Id. at 1380. In February 2001, Lin filed an application for cancellation of removal, seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. Id. at 1117-34. He claimed that he would be persecuted in China under the country’s birth control policy. Id. at 1130. Lin attached an affidavit to his application in which he provided a brief personal narrative. Id. at 1137. Lin stated that he was born and previously resided in Fujian Province, China, and that he married his wife, Bi Xian Zheng (“Zheng”), in 1988. He registered his marriage with the government in 1989. After her first child was born, Zheng was forced to have an intrauterine device (“IUD”) implanted by Chinese family planning officials. She later had the device removed by a private physician due to pain and discomfort. Soon thereafter, Zheng became pregnant with the couple’s second child. Lin stated that he left China for the United States in October 1990, shortly after his wife became pregnant. Id. Mindful that her second pregnancy was in violation of China’s birth control policy, Zheng went into hiding from family planning officials. Government 3 officials soon learned of the pregnancy and arrested Lin’s mother when she refused to divulge Zheng’s location. Zheng gave birth to the child in secret and a large fine was imposed on her for violating China’s family planning laws. Id. Lin stated that he divorced Zheng in 1994. Four years later, he reconciled with her after she arrived in the United States with her son. Lin and Zheng then had a third child together in the United States. Lin stated that, if forced to return to China, he or his wife would be sterilized, and they wanted to have more children. Id. Lin attached a copy of an article by Dr. John Aird, an expert on China’s family planning laws, to his February 2001 affidavit. Id. at 1232-48. The article described the coercive aspects of China’s one-child policy and concluded that China maintained its coercive birth control tactics despite stories to the contrary. Id. at 1235-48. Also attached was a transcript from a 1998 Nightline television broadcast in which former Chinese officials and China experts discussed forced sterilizations and abortions in the country. Id. at 1249-57.
In May 2003, Lin supplemented his application and included the asylum applications of his wife and son. Id. at 817-37. He also filed a supplemental affidavit in which he largely reiterated his previous statements. Id. at 840-43. Lin did state for the first time in his supplemental affidavit that his wife was forced to 4 undergo an abortion in China when she became pregnant after the couple’s first child. Id. at 840. Lin also explained that his wife was forced to pay three separate fines after their second child was born: one to obtain her mother-in-law’s release from custody, one to pay for the second child’s registration with the government, and one for her refusal to identify the doctor who delivered their second child. Id. at 842. Lin’s supplemental asylum application also included an affidavit from Zheng which largely matched Lin’s statements regarding their dealings with family planning officials in China. Id. at 848-51. In addition, Lin included a note from his son that stated that he would experience hardships if he and his family were forced to return to China as he does not read or write Chinese characters. Id. at 858-60. Finally, Lin attached several documents to his supplemental affidavit, including a “Planned Birth Control Operation Certificate” from a Chinese hospital which indicated that Zheng had a midterm induced abortion. Id. at 910. 2. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Documents In response, DHS filed the following documents related to Zheng’s immigration proceedings: (1) Zheng’s asylum application; (2) the transcript from Zheng’s asylum hearing; (3) a DHS forensic report; and (4) the 2004 State Department Country Report. Id. at 696-1434. 5 a. IJ’s Decision Regarding Zheng’s Asylum Application In her asylum application, Zheng contended that she was forced to have an abortion and was forced to submit a bond to ensure her return for sterilization in the future. Id. at 706-07. The IJ denied Zheng’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, finding that her testimony was not credible because her claim to a forced abortion was contradicted by a State Department Report that indicated certificates of abortion were only issued if the abortion was voluntary. Id. at 724-25. The IJ also noted that the State Department indicated that there were no forced abortions in the Fujian province and that birth control laws were not aggressively enforced there. Id. at 725-26. The IJ also questioned the authenticity of the documentary evidence submitted. Id. at 728-29. The IJ further found that Zheng failed to establish past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution. Id. at 728-30. b. Zheng’s Asylum Hearing Transcript Also included in the government documentation was the transcript from Zheng’s January 2000 asylum hearing. Id. at 738-814. During Zheng’s hearing, the DHS objected to the authenticity of Chinese documents submitted by Zheng on grounds that they could not be verified. Id. at 758. Zheng testified that though she was then divorced from Lin, she continued to live with him in the United States. Id. at 762-63. She testified to having three children, one who was born in the 6 United States, one born in China who was in the United States, and one that was born and resided in China. Id. at 764. Zheng stated that she had her first child at age twenty-two before China enacted regulations requiring that women wait until they were twenty-five. Id. at 770. She claimed that she was married at the time to Lin though the couple had not yet registered their marriage. Id. She stated that twenty days after giving birth to her first child she became pregnant again. Id. at 771. The pregnancy was discovered when she was taken to a hospital to have an IUD implanted. Id. at 771-72. Zheng testified that she was three months pregnant when she was taken to a hospital and forced to have an abortion. Id. at 771-73. When she became pregnant a third time with her second child, Zheng claimed that she hid from family planning officials at her brother’s house and her mother was arrested for not disclosing where she was. Id. at 777. After giving birth in secret at her brother’s house, she was visited by family planning officials and forced to pay a large fine. Id. Zheng stated that she was taken to be sterilized after giving birth to the second child but convinced officials not to go through with the procedure because her husband was out of the country. She then posted a bond to ensure she would not give birth again. Id. at 779-80. c. DHS Forensic Document Laboratory Report The government also filed a report from DHS’s Forensic Document Laboratory which examined the Chinese documents submitted by Lin and 7 concluded they could not be authenticated. Id. at 1408. The laboratory noted that based on the fee-for-service nature of the Chinese notarial system, documents such as the birth certificates and payment receipts had limited value without the primary evidence from which the documents were based. Id. at 1409. d. 2004 State Department Country Report Finally, the government submitted a 2004 State Department Country Report which stated that Chinese documents were subject to widespread fraud and fabrication, particularly documents related to birth and birth control measures. Id. at 1438. The report noted significant problems with notarial documents originating in the Fujian province as well. Id. The report also underscored the lack of evidence of forced abortions or sterilizations occurring in the Fujian province in the previous ten years, apart from isolated incidents in the 1980s and early 1990s. Id. at 1434.