Liu Jin Lin v. Holder, 723 F.3d 300

Lin, a Chinese citizen, seeks asylum with the IJ and BIA during removal proceedings initiated after a 2007 asylum filing; the IJ granted asylum on some grounds but the BIA vacated that grant and denied Lin's other grounds; Lin challenges only the BIA's rulings on IUD insertion and possible future births-based persecution; the record includes country conditions, family planning documents, and the 2007 State Department Profile; the BIA relied on the Profile over Lin's corroborating evidence; Lin's past claims about sterilization are not the basis for relief on review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA erred in reviewing IJ's Factual finding on IUD insertion	Lin argues BIA impermissibly conducted de novo review of the IJ's factual finding.	DHS contends BIA appropriately reviewed fact questions and applied de novo review to the ultimate fear conclusion.	BIA did not err; IUD insertion alone is not persecution and requires aggravating circumstances.
Whether Lin's fear of future births constitutes a well-founded fear	Lin asserts the fear of future abortions/sterilization based on added births is well-founded.	BIA reasonably rejected speculative future harms as too uncertain for asylum.	Substantial evidence supports the BIA's de novo determination that the fear of future births was not well-founded.

Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (de novo review of future-persecution conclusions; IUD issue not per se persecution; standard of review applied)
Huang v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010) (IUD insertion not persecution absent aggravating circumstances; deference to BIA interpretation)
Wang v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2007) (distinction between potential future births and speculative persecution)
Rebenko v. Holder, 693 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2012) (well-founded fear presumption; standard for asylum eligibility)
Lobo v. Holder, 684 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2012) (asylum withholding standard; higher threshold than asylum)