Opinion ID: 175121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remand Pursuant to Matter of J-S

Text: Huang next argues the BIA should have remanded proceedings to the IJ in light of Matter of J-S so that Huang could better establish other resistance to a family planning program as a ground for his asylum claim. Upon reviewing the BIA's finding that remand was unnecessary since the respondent does not allege `other resistance' or claim that as a basis for his fear of returning to China, we conclude that there was no error in this determination. [2] Huang did not expressly profess other resistance to a coercive family planning policy. The BIA was not required to find that Huang's broad statement in his brief that he was requesting asylum and withholding of removal based on account of Ren's forced abortion taken place on August 14-15, 1996 and his opposition to such government actions constituted an assertion of a claim under Matter of J-S. The record supports the BIA's conclusion. See Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir.2009). The petition is denied.