Wen-Xing Wang v. U.S. Attorney General
16-15378
| 11th Cir. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Wen‑Xing Wang, a Chinese national, was ordered removed after withdrawing asylum/CAT claims and granted voluntary departure in August 2006; he did not depart.
- Wang has three U.S.-born children and moved to reopen his removal proceedings (filed in 2008 and again in 2016) claiming changed country conditions in China would subject him to forced sterilization if returned.
- He asserted (1) increased, systematic enforcement of family‑planning policies in Fujian Province causing more forced sterilizations since 2006, and (2) a policy change counting foreign‑born children toward family‑planning limits, making sterilization mandatory for returning parents with foreign‑born children.
- The BIA denied the 2016 motion to reopen as untimely and found Wang’s new evidence insufficient to show materially changed country conditions or a mandatory sterilization policy for foreign‑born children; it also found he failed to establish prima facie eligibility.
- Wang appealed, arguing the BIA abused its discretion by failing to meaningfully consider his evidence of changed conditions and policy change; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wang showed materially changed country conditions in China since 2006 sufficient to excuse the untimely motion to reopen | Wang: Evidence shows increased enforcement and a campaign of forced sterilizations in Fujian after 2006 | BIA/Govt: Evidence shows longstanding coercive enforcement before and after 2006; no significant worsening since 2006 | Denied — court found BIA did not abuse discretion; evidence did not show material change |
| Whether there is a new/official policy counting foreign‑born children against family‑planning limits | Wang: New Fujian documents show foreign‑born children are now counted and sterilization is mandatory for violators | BIA/ Govt: Earlier documents and State Dept. reports show foreign‑born children were already counted; no new policy demonstrated | Denied — BIA reasonably concluded no convincing evidence of policy change |
| Whether the BIA adequately considered the submitted evidence | Wang: BIA failed to meaningfully address/credit his documents showing escalation | BIA/Govt: BIA cited and considered documents; not required to address each item; gave reasoned explanation | Denied — court found BIA gave reasoned consideration and adequate findings |
| Whether Wang established prima facie eligibility for relief | Wang: Alleged persecution risk (forced sterilization) makes him prima facie eligible | BIA/Govt: Even if risks exist, Wang didn’t show changed conditions and failed heavy burden for materiality | Not reached on merits — court upheld BIA on changed‑conditions ground and did not decide prima facie eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (increased local enforcement of family‑planning policy can show changed country conditions supporting reopening)
- Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2006) (motions to reopen are disfavored; standards for reopening)
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (grounds on which BIA may deny a motion to reopen)
- Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2006) (BIA need not address every piece of evidence but must give reasoned consideration)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (procedural context noting disfavor of reopening/removal motions)
- Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2007) (reaffirming standards for changed country conditions in reopening context)