Court Opinion

ID: 9817683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:37:34.605156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:00:56.825762
License: Public Domain

STAPLETON, J.,
concurring and dissenting:
The BIA, interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B), has held that “forced sterilization of one spouse ... is an act of persecution against the other spouse” because it “naturally and predictably has a profound impact on both parties to the marriage.” Matter of C-Y-Z, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997). Under this ruling, it would appear that Wu suffered past persecution beginning at the time of his wife’s forced abortion. Without some further explanation of the BIA’s decision that Wu has not experienced past discrimination, it is impossible for this Court to determine whether the ruling in this case is consistent with that in Matter of C-Y-Z or is an arbitrary and capricious deviation from it. Because we are responsible for making that determination, I would remand this matter to the BIA in order to secure a statement of the rationale behind its disposition of the past persecution issue. Smriko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279, 291 (3d Cir.2004).7

. Because the BIA chose to address the past persecution issue, Wu has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to it, and I find it properly before us.