Wanrong Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., 771 F.3d 177

Lin seeks a second motion to reopen removal proceedings before the BIA, challenging the Board’s evaluation of new evidence and the reliability of the 2007 Profile on China’s family planning policy.
The BIA denied the motion to reopen in December 2012, finding evidence insufficient to show changed country conditions or unreliability of the 2007 Profile.
Lin’s removal order arises from prior proceedings in which the IJ denied asylum and related relief; Lin’s family includes U.S. citizen children.
Lin submitted numerous documents (some unauthenticated) and challenged evidence from Fujian Province, including materials about coercive sterilization.
The court previously upheld the BIA’s denial of Lin’s first motion to reopen (Feb. 2010 filing); Lin now appeals that denial on second motion.
The opinion distinguishes Lin from Chen v. Holder, addressing whether the BIA properly considered competing evidence and whether the 2007 Profile could be relied upon.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chen requires reopening in Lin’s case.	Lin argues Chen mandates reopening due to contradictory evidence to the 2007 Profile.	Lin must show changed country conditions; Chen is distinguishable.	Chen distinguishable; not required to reopen.
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in weighing new evidence for changed conditions.	Lin argues new evidence shows changed conditions and unreliability of the 2007 Profile.	Evidence not sufficient, not new or not probative to Lin’s circumstances.	BIA did not abuse discretion; evidence insufficient.
Whether unauthenticated foreign documents were properly excluded.	Lin contends alternative authentication and that documents should be considered.	Documents failed authentication and no proper alternative authentication provided.	BIA did not abuse discretion in excluding unauthenticated documents.
Whether the 2007 Profile remained reliable given contradictory evidence.	Lin contends new reports and Sapio affidavit undermine 2007 Profile.	CECC reports and Sapio critique insufficient to undermine reliability.	BIA did not err in sustaining 2007 Profile reliability.

Chen v. Holder, 742 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2014) (remand for failure to consider contradictory evidence; distinguishable but probative on evidence evaluation)
In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2007) (changed country conditions inquiry for family planning enforcement)
In re Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464 (BIA 1992) (heavy burden to show change would likely change result)
Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2006) (Board not required to parse every piece of evidence; overall assessment allowed)
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion review for motions to reopen)
Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2009) (deference to BIA and standard of review for reopening)
Galina v. INS, 213 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (State Department reports not immune to contradiction)
Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2008) (evidence not previously unavailable merely because not presented earlier)
Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2009) (affirming consideration of conflicting evidence in Profile)
Ni v. Holder, 715 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2013) (Sapio affidavit rejection not error)