Xiu Jin Yu v. Attorney General of the United States
429 F. App'x 158
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Petitioners Yu and Liu, Chinese nationals, seek review of the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen after years in removal proceedings.
- Liu entered the U.S. in 2001; Yu followed in 2002; both conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Their fear is forcible sterilization under China’s family planning policy due to having a second child in the U.S.; they argue changed country conditions justify reopening.
- IJ denied relief in 2005; BIA affirmed; this Court denied their prior petitions in 2008.
- They filed a second motion to reopen in 2010, arguing changed country conditions and a more severe sterilization policy; the BIA denied as time- and number-barred, and this petition for review followed.
- Court reviews the BIA’s denial under abuse-of-discretion standard and evaluates whether the evidence supports changed country conditions and BIA’s reliance on State Department materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA properly denied reopening as time- and number-barred | Yu/Liu contend evidence of changed conditions warranted exception to time/number bars | Liu argues the exception does not apply; BIA properly applied limits | Denied; BIA did not abuse discretion in applying time/number-barred rules |
| Whether the BIA adequately analyzed petitioners’ documentary evidence | Petitioners claim BIA failed to meaningfully analyze voluminous evidence | BIA identified documents, found some unauthenticated or incomplete, and relied on other authorities | Denied; BIA’s analysis sufficient under Zheng standard |
| Whether the BIA’s reliance on the Asylum Profile shows changed conditions | Petitioners challenge reliability of the Asylum Profile to show no change | BIA properly credited State Department reports as highly probative | Denied; Asylum Profile supported no change in conditions |
| Whether petitioners can relitigate original asylum merits or related legal questions | Issues about asylum based on family planning policy should be reconsidered | Not appropriate to relitigate; must exhaust admin remedies; not raised in motion to reopen | Denied; not properly before court on a motion to reopen |
Key Cases Cited
- Zheng v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 549 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2008) (requires adequate explanation beyond mere citation for reopening decisions)
- In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209 (BIA 2010) (highly probative value of State Department country conditions reports)
- In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2007) (as evidence in motion to reopen considerations)
- In re J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007) (denying motion to reopen; reliance on State Department reports)
- In re J-H-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 196, 24 I. & N. Dec. 196 (BIA 2007) (denying motion to reopen; consideration of country conditions)
- In re C-C-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 899, 23 I. & N. Dec. 899 (BIA 2006) (analysis of evidence in motion to reopen)