Guo Ping Wu v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. ( 2009 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0537n.06
FILED
No. 08-3333 Aug 04, 2009
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GUO PING WU, )
)
Petitioner, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
v. ) APPEALS
)
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, ) OPINION
)
Respondent. )
)
BEFORE: NORRIS and COLE, Circuit Judges; ADAMS, District Judge.*
COLE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Guo Ping Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China (“China”), seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply
for asylum based on changed personal circumstances and changed country conditions. For the
following reasons, we DENY Wu’s petition for review.
I. BACKGROUND
Wu, who is from Fujian Province, unlawfully entered the United States in 1995 without being
inspected or admitted by an immigration officer. In 1996, he was charged as being deportable for
*
The Honorable John R. Adams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.
1
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
having entered the country unlawfully. Wu failed to appear at his hearing, and an immigration judge
(“IJ”) ordered his deportation in absentia. Wu remained in the United States, and in 2002 he married
another Chinese citizen. In June of 2003, they had a child. In March of 2003, Wu filed a motion to
reopen his proceedings with the IJ, claiming he did not receive notice of the time and place of his
hearing and seeking to apply for adjustment of status based on an employer-sponsored visa petition.
The IJ denied the motion, the BIA affirmed, and this Court denied Wu’s petition for review. See Wu
v. Gonzales, No. 05-3062 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2005).
On March 14, 2005, Wu filed a second motion to reopen his immigration proceedings—this
time with the BIA—to apply for asylum. The motion alleged that Wu had experienced a change in
circumstances; namely, that his wife was expecting their second child, and that one of them would
likely be forcibly sterilized if they returned to China. The motion was supported by extensive
documentation of China’s birth-limit policies and practices. The BIA denied the motion as untimely
and barred by the restriction on successive asylum applications, noting that a change in personal
circumstances, such as the birth of a child, does not constitute an exception to the limitations on
motions to reopen.
Wu petitioned the Sixth Circuit for review of that decision, arguing that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D)1 permits aliens to file successive asylum petitions on the basis of either changed
1
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) states: “An application for asylum may be considered,
notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) [requiring alien to apply for asylum within one year of arrival
in United States] and (C) [limiting alien to one asylum application], if the alien demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Attorney General . . . the existence of changed circumstances which
materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum . . . .”
2
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
personal circumstances or changed country conditions, despite the provision in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7) that bars untimely motions to reopen unless the movant shows changed country
conditions. The Sixth Circuit noted that the BIA had not addressed this non-frivolous argument and
remanded to allow it do so. See Wu v. Gonzales, 214 F. App’x 592, 594-95 (6th Cir. 2007). Before
deciding Wu’s case on remand, the BIA encountered and resolved this same question in Matter of
C- W- L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 346 (BIA 2007). In that case, the BIA rejected the interpretation of the
statutes upon which Wu relies and held that an alien subject to a final order of removal may not
submit a successive asylum application without first moving to reopen his case, and that such a
motion would be subject to the time and numerical limits found in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) unless the
alien establishes eligibility for the changed-country-conditions exception set forth in that section.
Id. at 352-53.
When Wu’s case was remanded, he submitted a supplemental brief and exhibits to the BIA.
In addition to arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) allowed him to file an untimely asylum
application based on changed personal circumstances, he raised the alternative argument that
conditions in China have changed since his deportation was ordered. In support of this argument,
Wu submitted three documents that were previously submitted by another petitioner in Shou Yung
Guo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding for the BIA to consider the
significance of three documents, which have subsequently come to be called the “Guo documents”
in other cases). The first document, Administrative Opinion on Sanctions Against Family Planning-
Violations By Zheng Yu He and His Spouse, promulgated by the Changle City Family-Planning
Administration (May 22, 2003), concludes that children born abroad to Chinese nationals count for
3
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
purposes of the local birth-limitation policies, unless the parents are permanent residents overseas,
and that such births will be “subject to enforcement under the Fujian Province Family-Planning
Regulations.” (Petitioner’s Appendix (“App.”) 57-58.) The second document, Administrative
Decision on Request for Directive From Fuzhou City Administration on Family-Planning in
Connection with Birth of a Second Child by Zheng Yu He of Changle City Municipal Bureau of
Construction and His Spouse in USA, authored by the Fujian Province Department of Family-
Planning Administration, also states that the birth of a second child abroad constitutes a violation
of the local birth-limitation policies and “is subject to sanctions and penalties applied under the
Fujian Province Family-Planning Regulations to returnees from overseas in other categories.” (App.
61-62.) The third document, a 1999 Q & A for Changle City Family-Planning Information
Handbook, states: “What birth-control measures are to be imposed upon birth of a first child / a
second child pursuant to the provincial family-planning regulations? A[nswer]: An IUD insertion
is mandatory upon birth of a first child; sterilization upon birth of a second child.” (App. 64-68).
The asserted implication of the Guo documents is that, at least in Fujian Province, parents of two
children will be subjected to sterilization, even if one of the children was born in the United States.
Wu also submitted numerous other documents, including the 2006 United States Department
of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for China, a 2003 United States Department of
State consular information sheet about China, newspaper articles about China’s birth-control
policies, and various other reports.
The BIA again denied Wu’s motion to reopen. Based on Matter of C- W- L-, the BIA found
that Wu’s asylum claim based on changed personal circumstances was barred by 8 U.S.C. §
4
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
1229a(c)(7). On Wu’s claim of changed country conditions, the BIA noted that it had recently issued
two opinions, Matter of J- W- S-, I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), and Matter of S- Y- G-, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 247 (BIA 2007), in which it found that the Guo documents do “not demonstrate that the
Chinese government has a national policy of requiring forced sterilization of a parent who returns
with children born in the United States.” (App. 3.) The BIA, referencing these prior opinions, stated
that “if a returning national is penalized at all, the evidence suggests that he or she will be sanctioned
through fines or other economic penalties which do not rise to the level of persecution or torture.”
(App. 3.) Wu petitioned this Court for review.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of review
“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion of the Board,”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), so we review the BIA’s denial of such motions for abuse of discretion. Zhang
v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851, 854 (6th Cir. 2008). An abuse of discretion occurs if the denial “‘was
made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on
an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.’”
Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (alterations in original) (quoting Balani v.
INS, 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 (6th Cir. 1982)).
The BIA’s factual determinations “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Sterkaj v. Holder, 315 F.
App’x 586, 588 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485, 491-92 (6th Cir.
2009) (reviewing BIA’s factual findings on motion to reopen under substantial-evidence standard);
5
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
but see Hanan v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 760, 763 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that the court lacked
jurisdiction over factual determinations relating to changed country conditions asserted in motion
to reopen).
The BIA may deny a motion to reopen proceedings if the movant fails to make a prima facie
showing of eligibility for the underlying substantive relief. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05
(1988); Alizoti v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 448, 452 (6th Cir. 2007). To make out a prima facie case, a
movant must put forth “evidence that ‘reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements
for relief have been satisfied.’” Alizoti, 477 F.3d at 452 (quoting Matter of S- V-, 22 I. & N. Dec.
1306, 1308 (BIA 2000)). Thus, Wu must show a reasonable likelihood that, if his case is reopened,
he will be able to establish that changed country conditions have caused him to have a well-founded
fear of forced sterilization. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (“[A] person who has a well founded fear that
he or she will be forced to undergo [involuntary sterilization] or subject to persecution for [failure
to do so] shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political
opinion.”). Even if the movant makes out a prima facie case for relief, the BIA has discretion to
deny the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
B. Change in personal circumstances
After Wu filed his opening brief, the Sixth Circuit decided Zhang v. Mukasey, agreeing with
the BIA’s reasoning in Matter of C- W- L- and rejecting the same argument now advanced by Wu
with respect to his change in personal circumstances and the apparent conflict between 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(a)(2)(D) and 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). See Zhang, 543 F.3d at 858-59. Zhang interpreted these
two provisions to operate in conjunction such that “an alien subject to a final order of removal for
6
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
90 days or more [is required] to make a successful motion to reopen prior to consideration of a
successful application for asylum,” and that such a motion will not be excepted from the time and
numerical limitations of § 1229a(c)(7)(C) by virtue of changed personal circumstances. Id. at 859.
Zhang forecloses Wu’s argument that the BIA erred in declining to reopen his case due to the birth
of his second child.1 See also Hu v. Holder, 318 F. App’x 348, 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that
birth of a child is a change in personal circumstances; citing cases).
C. Change in country conditions; well-founded fear of forced sterilization
Wu’s remaining argument is that he has established the existence of changed country
conditions in China. To succeed, Wu must present evidence that “is material and was not available
and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). “A motion to reopen proceedings shall state
the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be
supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Rather than focusing
on whether conditions in China had changed, the BIA simply held that Wu could not show a well-
founded fear of persecution under current conditions in China. Because this was a sufficient reason
for denying Wu’s motion, we will uphold the BIA’s ruling on this ground, although we note that Wu
has also failed to establish that conditions in China have changed since his prior proceeding.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that, if Wu’s case were reopened, he could
1
Wu does not allege in his briefs, nor does the record indicate, that his wife actually gave
birth to a second child. Instead, Wu continues to state that “his second child was expected to be
born on October 17, 2005.” (Wu Br. 59 n.19.)
7
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
not establish a well-founded fear of forced sterilization in China. Our previous cases involving
claims like Wu’s have reached the same conclusion: “The finding that children born outside of
China are not counted for purposes of China’s population-control policies continues to be accepted
by the BIA, as well as by other courts of appeals.” Fang Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640, 653 (6th
Cir. 2008); see also Yang Lin v. Holder, 320 F. App’x 428, 436-37 (6th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)
(holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen supported by the
Guo documents); Hu, 318 F. App’x at 352 (holding that substantial evidence supported “the BIA’s
conclusion that children born abroad are not counted for purposes of China’s family-planning
policies”). These cases support our determination that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in the
present case.
Wu points to no evidence that parents returning to China with children born abroad have
actually been subjected to forcible sterilization. The Guo documents merely suggest by implication
that one individual might have suffered such a fate, and that other similarly situated individuals
might as well. This does not satisfy the requirement that Wu present “reasonably specific
information showing a real threat of individual persecution.” See Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405,
410 (6th Cir. 2004).
The cases cited by Wu in which other courts of appeals have granted relief to Chinese
petitioners claiming fear of sterilization have involved stronger showings of an individualized risk
of harm. For example, in Xiu Zhen Lin v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 596, 597 (7th Cir. 2008), the petitioner
submitted a letter from the governing body of her village stating that it was aware that she had given
birth to a third child in the United States and that she “certainly will be subjected to sterilization
8
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
procedures” unless she obtained citizen or permanent-resident status or an advanced degree in the
United States. In Yaner Li v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1373 (11th Cir. 2007), the
petitioner presented her own affidavit describing second-hand accounts of forced sterilizations in
2005 in her home village, as well as an affidavit from her mother stating that three women in the
village had been forcibly sterilized. See also Xiu Qin Lin v. Mukasey, 275 F. App’x 249 (4th Cir.
2008) (similar). Despite both parties’ failure to mention it in their briefs, the record contains a 2005
affidavit that Wu submitted to the BIA, in which he states that his sister, his wife’s cousin, and his
wife’s aunt were forcibly sterilized after each of them had two children. (App. 318.) While this
lends credence to Wu’s fear that he or his wife will be forcibly sterilized, there is no indication that
these women gave birth to their children while living abroad, so the affidavit does not undermine
the BIA’s conclusion that parents of children born abroad have not been subjected to forced
sterilization. Overall, the evidence submitted by Wu was less probative of a likelihood of forced
sterilization than that offered in other cases, and we cannot say that the BIA abused its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen.
Wu raises several other challenges to the BIA’s decision, but, as described below, these
challenges fail.
1. Absence of documents from the record in this case that were present in Matter of S-
Y- G- and Matter of J- W- S- does not compel a remand
Wu argues that the BIA should not have relied on Matter of S- Y- G- and Matter of J- W- S-
because the records in those cases contained additional documents that are not present here—in
particular, a 2007 State Department report called China: Profile of Asylum Claims and Country
9
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
Conditions and an attached letter (the “Noyes letter”)—that supported the BIA’s conclusion that
returning aliens have not been subjected to forced sterilization. Wu seeks a remand directing the
BIA to limit its analysis to the documents in the record of this case. Such a remand is unnecessary
for several reasons.
First, if we were to remand, the BIA could simply take administrative notice of the 2007 State
Department report and other government documents on which it has relied in past cases, and there
is little doubt that it would then hold, as it has previously, that those documents outweigh the Guo
documents on which Wu relies. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (allowing administrative notice of
the contents of official documents); Matter of J- W- S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 189-90 (noting that 2007
State department report states that children of Chinese parents returning from overseas are “not . .
. counted” for birth-planning purposes in China, and taking administrative notice of other State
Department and Canadian government documents supporting this conclusion); Matter of S- Y- G-,
24 I. & N. Dec. at 255-56 (noting that 2007 State Department document outweighs Guo documents).
Remanding to the BIA in the face of this clear precedent would be futile. See Yang Lin, 320 F.
App’x at 437 (“[I]t is unnecessary to remand in cases like this one where we can predict with
confidence that the agency would reach the same result absent the error.”).
Second, part of Wu’s objection to the BIA’s reliance on Matter of J- W- S- and Matter of S-
Y- G- is that he “did not have an opportunity to address the particular issue” raised in the documents
relied on in those cases that were not part of the record in this case. (Br. 58.) This argument lacks
merit—Wu engaged in an extensive critique of the Noyes letter in his brief to the BIA. (App. 42-46.)
10
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
Third, the present record contains indications that returning Chinese citizens with American-
born children are not forcibly sterilized, and Wu has not put forth compelling evidence to the
contrary. For example, the 2004 State Department country report states that “U.S. diplomats in
China are not aware of any cases in which returnees from the United States were forced to undergo
sterilization procedures on their return.” (App. 714.) As noted above, Wu is unable to fill this gap
in the evidence. See, e.g., Zheng v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 70, 73 (1st Cir. 2008) (affirming BIA’s denial
of reopening where petitioner “failed to bring forth any evidence which would call into question the
[Board]’s determinations in” S- Y- G- and J- W- S-). Therefore, the BIA’s reliance on prior cases
with different records does not compel a remand.
2. Wu fails to distinguish the BIA’s decisions in S- Y- G- and J- W- S-
Wu attempts to distinguish Matter of J-W-S-, which the BIA found “squarely on point,” by
pointing out that Matter of J-W-S- dealt with an asylum appeal while this case involves a motion to
reopen. This argument fails because Wu’s ability to establish a prima facie case is directly related
to his ability to succeed on his asylum claim if the case is reopened. See Alizoti, 477 F.3d at 452.
Therefore, J-W-S-’s holding that the very documents at issue here do not support an asylum claim
supports the BIA’s decision that Wu is not entitled to a reopening of his case.
Wu attempts to distinguish Matter of S- Y- G- based on its facts. Matter of S- Y- G- was
decided following a remand in which the Second Circuit directed the BIA to consider the Guo
documents. Two of the Guo documents (administrative decisions from Fujian Province and Changle
City) relate to the case of an individual named Zheng Yu He (“He”) who was a Chinese government
11
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
employee and Communist Party member whose wife gave birth to a second child while they were
on a nine-month “family trip” to the United States. See Matter of S- Y- G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 254.
The Guo documents show that the local governments determined that He’s child would count for
purposes of the family-planning regulations, and that the normal local sanctions would apply. In
Matter of S- Y- G-, the BIA determined that these documents did not establish a well-founded fear
of forced sterilization for two reasons. First, as noted above, the BIA found a 2007 State Department
document concluding that evidence did not show that returning aliens were forcibly sterilized was
more recent and more credible than the Guo documents. Id. at 255-56. Second, the BIA noted that
He’s situation was factually distinguishable from the applicant’s in S- Y- G-, such that it was not
clear that the applicant would receive the same treatment as He. Id. at 256. In particular, the S- Y-
G- applicant was not a government employee or communist party member and had been living in
the United States for a long period of time. Id. In addition, the BIA noted that the applicant’s
second child had been born seven years after his first, while He’s second child had been born after
an interval of five-and-a-half years. Id. The BIA found this distinction relevant because longer
intervals between births are generally looked upon more favorably under family-planning regulations
in China. Id.
Wu claims that Matter of S- Y- G- is distinguishable from his case because his children were
born only two-and-a-half years apart, making him even more likely than He to face forced
sterilization. However, Wu, like the applicant in S- Y- G-, was not a government employee, not a
communist-party member, and not merely on a short stay in the United States. These facts all
12
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
suggest, as they did in Matter of S- Y- G-, that the Guo administrative decisions would not
necessarily apply to Wu. The fact that Wu’s children were born closer together in time than He’s
does not compel a finding that the Guo documents would apply to Wu.
3. Wu has not put forth evidence that he would be economically coerced to undergo
sterilization
Wu also argues that he could be compelled to undergo sterilization by virtue of economic
penalties. However, Wu has not pointed to evidence that would compel this Court to disagree with
the BIA’s conclusion, in reliance on Matter of J- W- S-, that the fines facing returning aliens with
American-born children do not rise to the level of persecution. (App. 3.) Wu cites a sentence in the
2006 State Department report stating that some couples violating the child-birth rules were assessed
fines “which sometimes reached 10 times a person’s annual disposable income.” (App. 79.) Wu
also points to a document from the INS’s Resource Information Center, stating “[f]ines can equal
several years’ wages for an average worker.” (App. 604). While fines of this magnitude might
effectively coerce a person in Wu’s position to agree to be sterilized, see Xiu Zhen Lin, 532 F.3d at
598 (remanding for BIA to consider whether fines facing returning Chinese would effectively force
them to submit to sterilization), Wu has cited no evidence of the frequency with which such large
fines are actually assessed, nor has he pointed to evidence (or even alleged) that he lacks the means
to pay a large fine. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Wu’s unsupported
arguments that he will face a fine so large that he will effectively be forced to undergo sterilization.
4. The brevity of the BIA’s opinion does not require a remand
Wu argues that the BIA’s opinion does not show that it actually considered the Guo
13
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
documents and applied them to Wu’s case. Wu cites no Sixth Circuit case law in support of his
argument. In a case with similar facts cited by the Government, Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 272-73
(2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit rejected this type of argument. In Wang, a Chinese national
sought to reopen his asylum claim based on changed country conditions, asserting that he faced
sterilization upon return to China as a result of having two children while living in the United States.
Id. at 273. The BIA issued a terse decision denying the motion. Id. at 275. On review, the Second
Circuit reasoned that, on the one hand, “the BIA abuses its discretion if it fails completely to address
evidence of changed country conditions offered by a petitioner . . . [;] [t]he BIA should demonstrate
that it has considered such evidence, even if only to dismiss it.” Id. (citations omitted). On the other
hand, the BIA is not required to parse or refute on the record every individual argument or document
offered by the petitioner, and “[t]his is particularly true for evidence . . . which the BIA is asked to
consider time and again.” Id. We find this reasoning convincing as applied to Wu’s case.
Wu cites a Second Circuit case reaching a seemingly opposite conclusion. See Zhi Yun Gao
v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2007) (remanding because the BIA failed to show that it had
given meaningful consideration to the petitioner’s documents). However, as noted above, we have
no doubt that the BIA would decide this matter the same way if the Court remanded and directed it
to expand its reasoning; therefore, remanding the case would be futile. See Yang Lin, 320 F. App’x
at 437.
We have considered Wu’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.
14
No. 08-3333
Guo Ping Wu v. Holder
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Wu’s petition for review and AFFIRM the decision
of the BIA.
15