Opinion ID: 3064150
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The One-Child Family Planning Policy

Text: Forced abortions and sterilizations are considered persecution on account of political opinion, and “a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure . . . shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). We have held that previously unavailable evidence alleging a recent campaign of forced sterilization in the petitioner’s home province was sufficient to satisfy the changed circumstances requirement in an untimely motion to reopen, where the evidence was consistent with the conclusion in the U.S. Department of State China Country Report on Human Rights Practices that forced abortions and sterilization continued in certain parts of China. Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1375 (11th Cir. 2007). Here, the BIA found that “none” of Li's family planning evidence post-dated the closing of the record below, but this is refuted by the record. Li actually submitted the following previously unavailable evidence: (1) her own affidavit stating that she would be subject to a fine and forced sterilization upon returning to China with two children in violation of the family planning policy; (2) a statement 5 by Amnesty International to the House of Representatives, issued in December 2004 following Li’s asylum hearing but before the BIA dismissed her appeal, indicating that human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate as a result of China's family planning policy; (3) a January 2007 article about China's plans to continue to enforce its family planning policy; and (4) the 2005 and 2006 Country Reports. The BIA’s failure to acknowledge or address Li’s previously unavailable evidence precludes us from properly reviewing the determination that she failed to demonstrate changed country conditions. Accordingly, we grant Li’s petition on this ground, vacate the order denying her motion to reopen based on China’s family planning policy, and remand the case to the BIA for additional investigation or explanation, and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.