Feng Lin v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
691 F. App'x 255
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Feng Jin Lin, a Chinese national who entered the U.S. in 2004, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in 2009 based on (1) refusal to submit to China's family‑planning measures (she has four children) and (2) conversion to Christianity in 2013.
- An IJ ordered her removal in 2010; the BIA dismissed her appeal in 2012. Lin filed a motion to reopen in 2016, which was untimely but premised on changed country conditions in China affecting Christians and enforcement of family‑planning policies.
- Lin submitted reports (USCIRF, State Department, China Aid, provincial documents) asserting increased repression of unregistered Christians since 2010 and more coercive family‑planning enforcement (sterilizations, fines) in Fujian Province.
- The BIA found the country‑condition materials showed longstanding concerns predating 2010, concluded Lin failed to show material changed circumstances or a prima facie entitlement to asylum/withholding/CAT, and denied the motion to reopen.
- Lin sought this Court’s review and alternatively requested a remand or a recommendation for prosecutorial discretion; the Sixth Circuit reviews denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for unregistered Christians | Lin: post‑2010 evidence shows worsening, systematic persecution of unregistered Christians (detention, psychiatric hospitalization, demolitions) creating a well‑founded fear of persecution | BIA/Govt: reports show longstanding restrictions predating 2010; submitted evidence is speculative and fails to show changed conditions or a real threat to Lin individually | Denied — BIA did not abuse discretion; evidence showed longstanding practices and Lin failed to show material change or reasonably specific individualized threat |
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying reopening based on changed family‑planning enforcement (sterilization/fines) | Lin: provincial documents and commission reports show more coercive enforcement since 2010 (forced sterilizations, sterilization after two children even if U.S.‑born) creating well‑founded fear | BIA/Govt: evidence shows continuation, not material change; enforcement varies locally, children born abroad generally not counted, and fines alone do not establish persecution absent severe deprivation | Denied — BIA reasonably found no material change and no showing of persecution or severe economic deprivation |
| Whether Lin established prima facie eligibility for asylum/withholding/CAT based on submitted evidence | Lin: country reports establish pattern or practice and risk of individual targeting as a proselytizing Baptist | BIA/Govt: record contradicts claim of systematic national policy targeting Christians; large Christian population and official recognition undermine showing of individualized likelihood of persecution | Denied — Lin did not make the prima facie showing required to meet the second prong for reopening |
| Whether court should order alternative relief (prosecutorial discretion or conditional remand) | Lin: requests recommendation for prosecutorial discretion or remand without vacatur if court finds no abuse | Gov’t: exercise of prosecutorial discretion is for executive branch; court should not direct such relief | Denied — Court declines to recommend or order alternative relief; decisions about prosecutorial discretion rest with executive |
Key Cases Cited
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 223 (2010) (standard of review for BIA denial of motion to reopen)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (standards for motions to reopen: materiality and availability of evidence at prior hearing)
- Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009) (continuing or sporadic enforcement does not necessarily establish changed country conditions)
- Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2004) (elements for changed country conditions motion to reopen)
- Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008) (children born abroad generally not counted for China family‑planning enforcement)
- Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) (economic penalties constitute persecution only when they cause deprivation of essentials of life)
- Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004) (public documentation of religious persecution can support relief when showing pattern or practice)