Ju Shi v. Lynch
662 F. App'x 3
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Shi, a native of Fujian, China, entered the U.S. without valid documents in 1995 and applied for asylum/withholding claiming fear of forced sterilization due to China's family‑planning enforcement.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief after a 2009 hearing; the BIA affirmed in 2011, finding coercive physical enforcement uncommon and sporadic reports insufficient to show a well‑founded fear.
- In 2012 Shi moved to reopen, submitting new evidence (2009–2012) including CECC reports, local Fujian campaign documents, government directives urging intensified enforcement, and news reports alleging forced abortions/sterilizations in Fujian.
- The BIA concluded Shi failed to show a material change in country conditions since 2009 because coercive enforcement and sporadic forced procedures were documented before 2009 and the new documents mainly showed renewed enforcement campaigns or uneven/localized pressure rather than a systemic increase.
- The First Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, requiring (1) material changed circumstances supported by evidence not available earlier and (2) prima facie eligibility for relief; it upheld the BIA, finding substantial evidence supported the denial to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shi showed a material change in country conditions since his 2009 hearing to justify reopening | Shi: New Fujian‑specific documents and 2009–2010 CECC reports show increased/coercive enforcement and new incidents of forced sterilization/abortion | BIA: Evidence shows longstanding, sporadic coercion and campaign documents reflect enforcement emphasis or uneven implementation, not a new systemic change | Denied — no material change shown; BIA decision supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the BIA sufficiently considered the submitted evidence | Shi: BIA ignored or summarily dismissed key Fujian documents and CECC reports | BIA: Not required to address every document in minute detail; must show reasoned consideration of evidence | Denied — BIA provided adequate reasoning and compared old and new evidence |
| Whether the record shows an increase in actual enforcement or only administrative exhortations/campaigns | Shi: Direct Fujian directives and recent reports indicate increased enforcement | BIA: Many directives target uneven compliance; campaigns suggest prior weak implementation rather than new coercion | Held for BIA — campaigns show fluctuation/renewed emphasis, not a measurable increase in coercion |
| Whether petitioner met burden to reopen (change + prima facie eligibility) | Shi: Meets change prong; thus reopening warranted (did not press prima facie if change proven) | Government: Shi bears burden on both prongs and failed first prong | Held: Petition denied on change prong; court did not reach prima facie question |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazariegos v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2015) (motion to reopen standards; changed circumstances requirement)
- Jutus v. Holder, 723 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2013) (requirements for reopening proceedings)
- Yang Zhao‑Cheng v. Holder, 721 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2013) (petitioner must show more than minor temporal fluctuation in persecution)
- Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 2010) (BIA has broad discretion over reopening decisions)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (Supreme Court) (standard of review for BIA reopening decisions)
- Xin Qiang Liu v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2015) (reviewing BIA factual findings for substantial evidence)
- Xian Tong Dong v. Holder, 696 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2012) (definition of substantial evidence in asylum context)
- Ping Zheng v. Holder, 701 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) (campaign/temporary enforcement documents may indicate uneven prior enforcement rather than changed conditions)