Opinion ID: 221618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The BIA’s Denial of Reopening

Text: Lin’s primary challenges to the BIA’s denial of reopening are based on the report of her purported expert, Dr. Flora Sapio. Lin presented Dr. Sapio’s report in support of her renewed argument that the 2007 Profile is unreliable. The BIA declined to reopen on that basis because, among other things, it was “not persuaded” that Dr. Sapio’s report “is an expert opinion on its unreliability.” (Nov. 29, 2010 BIA Order at 3, A.R. 5.) Lin’s primary argument is that the BIA inadequately addressed this issue. We disagree. On review, Lin argues at some length that Dr. Sapio’s qualifications make her an expert on the 2007 Profile and that her report undermines its reliability. As the Government points out, however, she did not raise any of these specific arguments before the BIA. Instead, she merely referred to Dr. Sapio as a “China expert” and included eight brief bullet points purporting to identify general deficiencies in the 2007 Profile without 5 specifying the portions of the Profile allegedly called into question or the manner in which they relate to her claim. (A.R. 16.) Lin’s reference to Dr. Sapio was sufficient for exhaustion purposes. See Lin v. Att’y Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 120-21 (3d Cir. 2008). Given the cursory manner in which she raised Dr. Sapio’s report before the BIA, however, we cannot fault the BIA for failing to address the issue in any more detail than it did. We decline to hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying reopening for reasons that Lin did not argue before the BIA in the first place. 2 Dr. Sapio aside, Lin argues that two other pieces of evidence warranted reopening. We reject these arguments as well. First, she relies on a Zhengfeng Village Committee Certificate stating, purportedly in response to an inquiry from her cousin, that she will be forced to have an abortion if returned while pregnant and that she will be forcibly sterilized. (A.R. 224.) Lin, however, attached this certificate to her first motion to reopen, and the BIA rejected it in its March 15 order for lack of authentication. As explained above, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider that ruling, and Lin cannot challenge the underlying ruling itself. Cf. Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 391 & n.12 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting that authenticity of similar certification 2 Lin also argues that, independent of the 2007 Profile, Dr. Sapio’s report itself shows changed conditions in China that warrant reopening. In contrast to the issue just discussed, however, Lin did not raise that argument before the BIA at all. We thus lack jurisdiction to address it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Lin, 543 F.3d at 120. Lin further argues that the BIA improperly treated the 2007 Profile as unchallengeable in the absence of official retraction. Its consideration of her arguments, however, sufficiently demonstrates that it did not. 6 “may well be open to question,” but leaving that issue for the BIA to decide in the first instance). Second, Lin relies on what she calls an “internal ShouZhan document,” which appears to consist of Changle City, Shou Zhan Township Committee announcements regarding the enforcement of family planning policies in 2009. (A.R. 62-78.) The BIA specifically discussed this document and rejected it on the ground that Lin (who is from Fuzhou City) had not shown that it is applicable to her. (Nov. 29, 2010 BIA Order at 3, A.R. 5.) Lin argues that the BIA erred in requiring evidence regarding her actual hometown because the BIA has recognized that aliens need only submit evidence showing that they “violated family planning policy as established in [their] local province, municipality, or other relevant area[.]” In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 251 (BIA 2007). She further argues that the Changle City/Shou Zhan Township documents are from an “other relevant area” because Fuzhou City is located in the same province. These documents, however, do not purport to announce any policy at the provincial level. Nor has Lin cited any evidence requiring the BIA to conclude that the policy they announce is in force in both cities. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting these documents on that basis. 3 Lin has not argued that the BIA inadequately considered the evidence submitted with her second motion to reopen under Zheng or raised any other argument calling the denial of that motion into question. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review. 7