Lin v. Attorney General United States
700 F.3d 683
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Lin, a Chinese Christian, entered the U.S. illegally ~May 15, 2004, and is removable under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
- NTA issued Dec 12, 2008; Lin sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- IJ denied relief Aug 23, 2010, citing failure to file within one year and adverse credibility.
- BIA denied Lin’s appeal on Aug 25, 2011.
- Lin moved to reopen with newly available documents (arrest summons, friend’s arrest, warning memo, photos) but did not authenticate or explain authenticity; did not file a new asylum application.
- Court reviews BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion; motions to reopen are disfavored and subject to three grounds (prima facie relief, new evidence, discretionary denial)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA properly denied reopening based on unauthenticated new evidence | Lin argues authentication possible; BIA erred | Lin failed to authenticate; BIA acted within discretion | No abuse; evidence insufficiently authenticated |
| Whether authentication can be satisfied by means other than §1287.6 | Lin attempted alternative authentication | No efforts shown to authenticate; documents unauthenticated | BIA did not abuse discretion; substantial evidence supports denial |
| Whether failure to submit a new asylum application justified denial | N/A | Regulatory requirement to file accompanying relief application | Procedural failure independently justifies denial |
| Whether prior adverse credibility affected the motion to reopen | Credibility issue from prior IJ/ BIA decision should not control new evidence | Prior credibility relevant to prima facie relief | Court affirming BIA’s reliance on record and prior credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Liu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2004) (authentication not exclusive; exceptions when cooperation from foreign officials is lacking)
- Leia v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 427 (3d Cir. 2005) (authentication can be proven by other means when proper authentication impossible)
- In re Yewondwosen, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1025 (BIA 1997) (BIA may reopen for fairness; accompanying relief not strictly required)
- Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 2011) (BIA may deny based on failure to file accompanying petition for relief)
- Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010) (evidence considered with new evidence in prima facie relief analysis)
- Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1992) (motions to reopen are disfavored; abuses of discretion standard)
- Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1988) (development of threshold and discretionary limits on relief)
- Liu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2004) (see above)