Opinion ID: 798620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forced Sterilization

Text: Petitioners’ argument that the BIA erred in finding that Petitioners Jian Yi Huang and Jin Yan Ye failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the births of her three children in violation of China’s family planning policy is foreclosed by this Court’s decision in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008). Although Petitioners are from Zhejiang Province and the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao are from Fujian Province, before the agency, as in their counseled brief to this Court, Petitioners relied on country conditions evidence either considered in Jian Hui Shao or related to Fujian Province. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 158-68. Petitioners argue that the BIA erred by failing to make an explicit credibility finding before discounting testimony and documentary evidence. However, the BIA did not discount any of Petitioners’ evidence or testimony in affirming the IJ’s alternative finding that they failed to meet their burden of proof. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners’ assertion that the BIA held them to an “exceedingly high” 3 burden of proof, there is no indication that the BIA required them to demonstrate anything other than a wellfounded fear of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 156 & n.15. Petitioners further argue that the agency failed to give sufficient evidentiary weight to a letter from Jian Yi Huang’s aunt, who was sterilized after giving birth to two children in China. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertion, the agency did not err in finding that the letter was not material because it did not detail the forced sterilizations of a similarly situated individual–namely, a Chinese national who gave birth to children abroad. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 160-61, 170-71. Finally, the record would not compel a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Petitioners established a reasonable possibility that they would face the imposition of penalties amounting to economic persecution upon their return to China. See Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170-75 (BIA 2007); see also Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002); Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 161-62, 164 n.25. Accordingly, the petition is denied, in part, to the extent it challenges the agency’s determination 4 that petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on their violation of China’s family planning policy.