Lin v. Attorney General of the United States ( 2013 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2583
___________
MEI LIN,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A099-930-856)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 17, 2013
Before: RENDELL, ALDISERT and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 18, 2013)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Mei Lin petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review.
Lin, a citizen of China, entered the United States in May 2001. In December
2006, she applied for asylum and withholding of removal. She alleged that she would be
persecuted under the family planning policy. In February 2007, she was charged as
removable as an alien without valid, unexpired documents at the time of her entry. Lin
conceded removability. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lin removable
and denied relief. Lin appealed and subsequently filed a motion to remand with the BIA.
She sought to raise a new claim that she would be persecuted based on her Christian
religion if removed to China. The BIA dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to
remand, and Lin filed a timely petition for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252.
First, Lin argues that the BIA erred in determining that she had not met her burden
of proof. She contends that she has established that it is more likely than not that she will
be forcibly sterilized if returned to China. The BIA observed that the record reflected
that physical coercion is uncommon and unsanctioned to achieve compliance with the
family planning policy and that most violators of the policy paid fines. Lin contends that
the fine that will be levied upon her would constitute economic persecution. The BIA
noted that Lin had not shown that she would be unable to pay the fine. It observed that
the enforcement of the policies in Fujian were described as lax and uneven in the 2007
China: Profile of Asylum Claims and that couples may be allowed to pay the fine in
installments. Lin does not challenge the BIA’s conclusions on this issue. Lin has not
2
shown that the record compels a finding that she has a well-founded fear of future
persecution or that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted.
Next, Lin contends that the BIA erred in failing to credit her documents. The BIA
gave little weight to the village committee notices Lin submitted because they were
unauthenticated photocopies that did not identify the author and were obtained for the
purpose of the hearing. We have held that such unauthenticated documents may properly
be discounted. Ying Chen v. Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 112, 117 (3d Cir. 2011). Lin asserts
that the documents were authenticated through credible testimony. However, the page of
the appendix to which she cites is part of the IJ’s opinion and does not contain or refer to
any credible testimony authenticating the documents. While the IJ found Lin to be
credible, her credible testimony cannot establish the authenticity of documents sent from
China because she has no personal knowledge of their authenticity.
Lin also contends that the BIA failed to give proper weight to evidence of the
sterilization of other Chinese citizens on their return to China. The BIA gave little weight
to the affidavit of Jin Fu Chen because his statement was unsworn, not notarized, and was
prepared for another asylum applicant’s hearing. J.A. at 5, 2076. The BIA noted that no
efforts were made to establish the authenticity or reliability of the documents and that
Chen had not provided details to show that he was forcibly sterilized. The affidavit of
Mei Yun Chen was likewise unsworn and unauthenticated. J.A. at 1168. The BIA did
not err in discounting these documents.
3
Finally, Lin argues that the BIA erred in denying the motion to remand because
she made a prima facie showing of a well-founded fear of persecution based on her
Christian religion. She submitted, inter alia, an updated asylum application, a baptism
certificate, a statement from her father, and background documents. She asserted that in
November 2010, a few months after the IJ denied her asylum application, her parents’
underground church was raided and her father was detained and beaten. A few months
later, Lin was baptized. The BIA concluded that Lin had not shown that the Chinese
government was or would be aware of her religious activities and would mistreat her.1 It
further observed that aliens may not manufacture new asylum claims by changing their
personal circumstances. See Liu v. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 145, 151 (3d Cir. 2009). Lin
has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to remand.
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
1
We note that Lin testified that if removed to China, she would live with her husband’s
family, which is an hour away from her family. J.A. at 547, 572.
4