Ji Cheng Ni v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
715 F.3d 620
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ni came to the United States from Fujian Province in 2001; an IJ ordered removal in 2003 and the appeal failed.
- Ni remained in the U.S. despite the order and started a family, with two children by 2011.
- In 2011 Ni moved to reopen removal proceedings, claiming risk of forced sterilization under China's one-child policy if returned to Fujian.
- BIA denied reopening, concluding no change in country conditions or in Ni's circumstances justifying late reopening.
- Ni submitted extensive local Fujian evidence and CECC reports post-2007 alleging stricter enforcement, which the Board largely treated as insufficient.
- This court granted the petition, finding the BIA failed to meaningfully address the submitted evidence and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the BIA abuse discretion by not addressing changed conditions post-2007? | Ni argues conditions worsened in Fujian after 2007 and the BIA ignored evidence. | Board held no demonstrated change in country conditions to justify reopening. | Remand warranted; BIA failed to provide rational, reasoned analysis of new evidence. |
| Was Ni's local-Fujian evidence properly weighed and authenticated? | Documents from Guantou Town/Lianjiang County show coercion and tightening enforcement. | Authentication issues and weight given to broader Fujian materials justify Board's view. | Board failed to meaningfully weigh Ni's local evidence; remand required for proper consideration. |
| Did the Board adequately treat CECC Reports as evidence of changed conditions? | CECC reports show worsening practices and coercive measures since 2007. | CECC reports are not conclusive; may be given weight but not dispositive. | Board did not sufficiently explain how CECC reports affected its change-in-conditions finding; remand. |
| Did the Board apply the prima facie asylum standard correctly in reopening analysis? | Ni argued for a reasonable likelihood standard; Board did not clearly apply any standard. | Board evaluated evidence under § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii) without explicit prima facie discussion. | Board's silence on the prima facie standard requires remand for transparent application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liang v. Holder, 626 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2010) (changed-country-conditions standard for reopening requires province-level deterioration)
- In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2007) (case-by-case approach to China population-control claims)
- Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2008) (agency must announce its decision with enough detail to show consideration)
- Borovsky v. Holder, 612 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2010) (cannot substitute own rationale for agency decision)
- Gebreeyesus v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. 2007) (adverse-credibility findings do not automatically govern reopened proceedings)
- Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (BIA not required to parse every piece of evidence, but must consider issues raised)
- Liu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2004) (authentication of foreign documents; not automatic exclusion)
- Youkhana v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2006) (deferential standard of review for agency findings)
- Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (agency must provide rational explanation; not arbitrary)
- H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209 (BIA 2010) (crediting State Department profiles with deference while evaluating country conditions)