Qiao Ling Lin v. Holder
441 F. App'x 390
7th Cir.2011Background
- Lin, a Chinese citizen, petitions for review of a BIA denial of her motion to reopen asylum proceedings as untimely.
- She entered the U.S. in 2003 using a Japanese passport in another name, sought asylum for alleged Christian persecution in Fujian, and was deemed to have abandoned her asylum request by the IJ.
- In 2010 Lin moved to reopen, arguing a material change in China’s family-planning enforcement and religious climate.
- She submitted over 1,000 pages of new evidence, including expert reports, CECC materials, Chinese-government documents, and personal sterilization-related materials.
- The Board denied reopening as untimely, discounting some evidence and concluding no material change in country conditions warranted reopening, a decision reviewed for abuse of discretion under Seventh Circuit standards.
- The court applied a highly deferential standard, allowing evidence weighting but requiring a prima facie basis for change in country conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused its discretion by discounting Dr. Sapio and preferring the 2007 Profile | Lin argues Sapio undermines the Profile’s assessment | Lin’s evidence immaterial; Profile persuasive | No abuse; Board could deem Sapio immaterial despite considering it |
| Whether the Board failed to address CECC reports on family planning | CECC reports show coercive enforcement | Failure to discuss is excusable; would not change outcome | Not an abuse; even if considered, CECC reports do not show deterioration since 2004 |
| Whether Lin showed a material change in country conditions for both family planning and Christian persecution | Conditions worsened; evidence of change since 2004 | No proven material change; evidence insufficient to show persecution | No material change warranted reopening; petition denied |
| Whether evidence about children born abroad being counted affects Lin’s risk | Children abroad counted for family-planning purposes | China regards children of nationals who have not permanently settled as Chinese nationals | No clear distinction found; not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Liang v. Holder, 626 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2010) (burden to show material change requires a prima facie asylum case; deference to Board)
- Kucana v. Holder, 603 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2010) (review of Board discretion in reopening is deferential; limited ground)
- Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2008) (Board need not discuss every piece of evidence; broad review)