Mu Ying Wu v. U.S. Attorney General
745 F.3d 1140
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Wu and Zhang, Chinese nationals, entered the U.S. illegally and were ordered removed/deported but later married and had three U.S.-born children.
- They repeatedly moved to reopen their immigration cases (2004–2007) on claims of future persecution, including sterilization, if returned to Fujian Province, China.
- The BIA granted last 2007 motions to reopen and remanded for authenticity and merits review; the IJ held a merits hearing in 2010, denying asylum and withholding of removal.
- DHS presented country condition evidence on China’s family planning law, including the 2007 Profile and 2009 Report, noting variability in enforcement and lack of official policy mandating sterilization of couples with U.S.-born children.
- Wu and Zhang submitted 2006 Tingjiang and other documents; the DHS evaluated the Tingjiang document as unauthenticated and fraudulent-like, and the IJ discounted it; the BIA affirmed, weighing credibility and evidence.
- The court ultimately denied the petition, upholding the IJ and BIA determinations that Wu failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of the 2006 Tingjiang Document | Wu/Zhang contend document authentic. | IJ/BIA found unauthenticated documents; DHS examined authenticity. | Unauthenticated documents receive little weight; authentication not shown. |
| Well-founded fear of future persecution for sterilization | Wu established policy existence and enforcement with U.S.-born children; coerced sterilization possible. | Wu failed three-part J-H-S- test; no uniform policy shown; no proven coercion. | Substantial evidence supports BIA finding no well-founded fear. |
| Economic persecution under family planning fines | Fines could cause severe economic hardship given Wu/Zhang’s finances. | Fines may be affordable; installments possible; not probative of persecution. | Record does not compel a finding of economic persecution. |
| Standard of review and weighing of evidence | BIA ignored or misweighed evidence supporting sterilization/persecution. | BIA properly weighed evidence, including unreliability of unauthenticated documents. | Court upholds BIA/IJ’s weighing of evidence; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J-H-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 196 (BIA 2007) (three-part test for well-founded fear in Chinese family planning cases)
- Matter of H-L-H-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209 (BIA 2010) (case-by-case approach to enforcement of China’s family planning policy)
- Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2007) (distinction between foreign-born and Chinese-born children in asylum cases analyzed)
- Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (reopening/consideration of evidence where prior cases lacked evidence of distinction)
- Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2009) (reopening and weighing of village committee documents; need to consider corroborating evidence)