Shao Chen v. Attorney General of the United States, 697 F. App'x 755

Chen, a Chinese citizen, was denied asylum in 1997, remained in the U.S., and later fathered three children.
In 2015 Chen moved to reopen his immigration proceedings, arguing changed country conditions in China—specifically, more aggressive enforcement of family‑planning policies—would cause persecution for having excess children.
The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen, finding Chen failed to show materially changed conditions since 1997 and that his new evidence did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief.
The Board took administrative notice of the State Department’s 2015 Country Report on Human Rights in China; Chen argued he was denied an opportunity to respond and that this violated due process.
Chen submitted unsworn personal statements from returnees, expert and documentary evidence; the Board gave limited weight to the unsworn statements and considered the record as a whole.
The Third Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and upheld the Board, finding its opinion reasoned and supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to reopen standard (changed conditions and prima facie eligibility)	Chen: China’s family‑planning enforcement has worsened since 1997, warranting reopening.	BIA: Chen failed to show materially changed country conditions; evidence insufficient for prima facie relief.	Denial affirmed — Chen did not meet Abudu burden to reopen.
Administrative notice of State Dept. Report / due process	Chen: BIA’s reliance on 2015 Country Report without opportunity to respond violated due process.	BIA: May administratively notice State Dept. country reports, especially when petitioner previously submitted earlier reports.	No due process violation; use of report permissible and not dispositive alone.
Weight and admissibility of unsworn personal statements	Chen: BIA arbitrarily discounted unsworn returnee statements; other evidence was likewise unsworn.	BIA: Unsworn personal statements are less reliable than sworn testimony, reports, and expert evidence; may assign limited weight.	BIA acted reasonably in giving limited weight to unsworn statements.
Consideration of evidence as whole / meaningful review	Chen: BIA failed to meaningfully consider CECC reports, local campaigns, and provincial returnee evidence; misapplied J‑H‑S‑.	BIA: Conducted plenary review, considered relevant evidence, applied individualized inquiry consistent with precedent.	Court finds BIA’s review adequate and not perfunctory; no abuse of discretion.

INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1988) (motion to reopen standards: materiality, unavailable evidence, prima facie eligibility)
Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2006) (standard of review for denial of motion to reopen: abuse of discretion)
Jian Jian Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2004) (review requires upholding BIA unless decision is arbitrary or contrary to law)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
Sheriff v. Attorney Gen., 587 F.3d 584 (3d Cir. 2009) (BIA may take administrative notice of State Dept. country reports)
Chhetry v. Dep’t of Justice, 490 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2007) (discusses circumstances requiring opportunity to respond when BIA relies on administratively noticed facts)
Fei Yan Zhu v. Attorney General, 744 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2014) (BIA may assign weight to evidence based on reliability and context)
Huang v. Attorney General, 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010) (BIA must consider evidence as a whole; review for perfunctory treatment)