Opinion ID: 3025404
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lin’s Asylum Claim

Text: The Attorney General has the discretion to grant asylum to an alien who meets the definition of a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b). An individual qualifies as a “refugee” if she is “unable or unwilling” to return to her country of origin “because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. at § 1101(a)(42). Forced abortion and forced sterilization constitute persecution “on account of political opinion.” Id. To establish 4 eligibility for asylum, an alien must demonstrate past persecution by substantial evidence or a well-founded fear of persecution that is both subjectively and objectively reasonable. Butt v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 430, 433 (3d Cir. 2005). The government contends that Lin waived her claims as to past persecution and correctly notes that Lin does not explicitly challenge the IJ’s finding as to waiver in her brief. Even if the waiver issue were before us, the IJ’s conclusion that she waived her past persecution claims was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Lin’s counsel was specifically asked whether she intended to proceed with her past persecution claim. Counsel responded that he had discussions with Lin in light of the consular investigation and had decided to proceed only with the claim that she would be persecuted based on the birth of her second child.2 3 This Court also finds that substantial evidence supports the determination that Lin did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis that she had a second child. The government concedes that Lin has established a subjective fear of persecution should she be removed to China. The Department of State reports and Lin’s testimony support the IJ’s and 2 Counsel later suggested that this decision was based on the BIA’s decision in In re O-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1079 (BIA. 1998), which addressed the submission of fraudulent documents. 3 Even if Lin had not waived her arguments as to past persecution, we would not be compelled to conclude that the IJ’s findings as to those claims were not conclusive. Although a medical report issued in the United States states that Lin underwent two “VTOPs” (voluntary termination of pregnancy), based on the consular investigation, the IJ found that the evidence submitted to corroborate the abortions and termination of employment had been discredited in the husband’s case and that it would be estopped from concluding otherwise in Lin’s case. Lin provided no testimony related to her past persecution claims. 5 BIA’s conclusion that she did not show an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. The State Department materials in particular indicate that forced abortion and sterilization are no longer permitted by the central government and that the U.S. consulate has not seen forced abortion or sterilization in Fujian Province since the 1980’s. Lin has not identified any evidence properly before us to support a contrary finding or a finding that she would be specially targeted for such mistreatment.