Opinion ID: 2567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Findings as to Local Enforcement Policies

Text: The same conclusion applies with respect to evidence of local enforcement policies. While official documents from Fujian Province and Changle City indicate that Chinese nationals who violate birth limits while abroad will be subject to the same punishment as citizens whose violations occur in China, the BIA reasonably observed that these documents made no refer[ence] to sterilization, much less forced sterilization, as a possible punishment. Id. at 192. As in J-H-S-, the BIA declined to infer a reasonable possibility of such persecution from the reference in the 1995 Changle City Opinion to mandatory sterilization for unauthorized births, explaining that no record evidence indicated that the mandate is implemented through physical force or other means that would amount to persecution. Id. The BIA was entitled to view the omission as significant in light of State Department evidence indicating that (a) central government policy prohibits physical coercion to compel persons to submit to family planning enforcement, id. at 193 (citing 2002 Country Report § 1(f); 2006 Country Report § 1(f)); (b) even in Fujian Province, children born abroad might not be counted against the number of their parents' authorized births `if not registered as permanent residents of China,' id. (quoting 2007 Profile ¶ 112); and (c) enforcement efforts in Fujian Province were lax or uneven, id. (citing 1998 Profile at 21, 26); see also id. at 193-94 (describing `wide variation' in how Fujian Province imposes penalty fees for unauthorized births (quoting 2005 Profile at 25)); id. at 194 (noting that British authorities similarly characterized enforcement policies in Fujian Province as lax (citing Country Info. & Policy Unit, UK Immigration & Nationality Directorate, China Country Assessment (Apr.2002))). [27] From this evidence, the BIA was further entitled to conclude that a reference in the 2006 Country Report to unattributed reports of forced sterilizations in Fujian Province of an unspecified number of women in undescribed circumstances did not persuasively demonstrate a reasonable possibility that Ji Wen Shi would face such persecution on removal to China. See generally Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d at 129 (observing that any evidence of forced sterilization of others must demonstrate circumstances sufficiently similar to petitioner's to provide solid support for claim of a well-founded fear of the same persecution on removal). Indeed, as in J-H-S-, the BIA noted that its decision to accord little weight to the unattributed reports was reinforced by State Department interviews in 2006 with visa applicants from Fujian Province, which yielded `no evidence' of forced abortions. In re J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 194 (quoting 2007 Profile ¶ 99 (also reporting that consular officials traveling in Fujian Province reported no evidence of forced sterilizations or abortions)). Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that Ji Wen Shi had not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that local enforcement policies would subject him to forced sterilization on removal to China.