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

Heading: Ninth Circuit Law On Coercive Population Control Practices

Text: 12 In interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), this court has held that (1) a showing that an alien has been subjected either to a forced abortion or an involuntary sterilization as a result of a coercive population control program makes that person eligible for asylum, and (2) if a wife has been the victim of the forced abortion or sterilization, the husband, as well as the wife, is eligible for asylum. 3 See, e.g., Zheng v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.2005) (Zheng is therefore eligible for asylum because of the forced abortion of his child....); Ge v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir.2004) (Ge is automatically eligible for asylum if he can show that his wife was forced to undergo an abortion under China's one-child policy.); He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 604 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that He is automatically eligible for asylum based on his wife's involuntary sterilization). We have never explained how the regulatory presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution created by past persecution (and the government's ability to rebut that presumption) applies in cases of forced abortion and sterilization. Instead, we have simply declared that the Congressional meaning is evident: that these individuals are eligible for asylum. See, e.g., Ge, 367 F.3d at 1127 (Accepting Ge's testimony as true, he has conclusively established past persecution and eligibility for asylum.); He, 328 F.3d at 604(holding that an alien subjected to forced sterilization is automatically classified as a refugee and not discussing the presumption of well-founded fear or rebuttal). 13 Although our law is clear with respect to eligibility for asylum, we have never decided whether an alien is statutorily entitled to withholding simply by virtue of a forced abortion or involuntary sterilization. Instead, we have usually remanded the question of the availability of withholding relief to the BIA to evaluate in the first instance, generally because the question has been inadequately briefed to this court. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1139 (remanding the withholding issue because the parties did not brief the issue of withholding to us on appeal in any detail); Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (remanding the withholding issue because it was neither fully briefed nor specifically argued); Ge, 367 F.3d at 1127 (remanding for the BIA to evaluate the withholding issue in the first instance); He, 328 F.3d at 604(remanding for further proceedings on whether Mr. He is eligible for withholding of removal). 4 In no case in which we remanded a withholding claim, however, did we state that we were required to do so, or that any precedent compelled such action. Moreover, in all of those cases, we found the petitioner eligible for asylum and were required to remand in any event for the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion. The withholding remands were always ancillary to the primary asylum question. 14 In this case, only Qu's withholding of removal claim is before us, because he does not contest that his application for asylum is time-barred. Moreover, the issue of Qu's entitlement to removal has been fully briefed. Furthermore, here, not only has the BIA explicitly ruled on the issue of Qu's entitlement to withholding of removal, but, as will be discussed below, it has in a subsequent controlling opinion considered the legal issue at length and definitively decided it in a manner that we can now fully evaluate and adopt.