Xiu Ling Chen v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 751 F.3d 876

Background

Xiu Ling Chen, born in Fujian, China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2001 and applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection based on fears related to China’s family‑planning policies.
She initially alleged a forced abortion but later amended her claim: after having three U.S.-born sons, she feared involuntary sterilization and severe economic penalties (fines) if returned to Fujian.
An IJ denied relief in 2005; the BIA dismissed the appeal. The Seventh Circuit remanded for further factual findings about Fujian’s financial exactions and sterilization practices.
After remand and a 2010 merits hearing, the IJ again denied relief; the BIA affirmed in 2012. Chen moved to reopen based on purportedly new country‑condition evidence from China; the BIA denied the motion as some evidence was previously available or unauthenticated and because she failed to show a prima facie case.
The Eighth Circuit reviews the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and denies Chen’s petition, holding she did not present previously unavailable, material evidence nor make a prima facie showing that fines or sterilization threats would amount to persecution in her circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chen presented new, previously unavailable, material evidence to justify reopening	Chen: submitted Chinese documents showing increased sterilization and penalties in Fujian; these show changed country conditions	Gov't/BIA: documents were available or not sufficiently authenticated and do not specifically apply to returnees with foreign‑born children	Denied — evidence was not shown to be both previously unavailable and material to likely change outcome
Whether Chen made a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum/withholding/CAT based on fear of sterilization	Chen: credible fear of forced sterilization and economic persecution from fines	BIA: record lacks evidence sterilization would be imposed on her situation or that fines would rise to level of persecution	Denied — Chen failed to show a realistic chance of establishing eligibility
Proper authentication and consideration of foreign documents	Chen: BIA applied §1287.6 too strictly and should accept other indicia of reliability	BIA: documents were not sufficiently authenticated or shown to apply to Chen’s case	Held — BIA did not abuse discretion in finding documents unauthenticated; even considering them, they do not show prima facie eligibility
Standard of review for motion to reopen (abuse of discretion)	Chen: BIA applied an overly stringent prima facie standard	BIA/Gov't: applied correct standards for reopening and prima facie showing	Held — reviewed for abuse of discretion; no abuse found in BIA’s reasoning

Key Cases Cited

Quinteros v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir.) (new evidence must be previously unavailable and material)
Strato v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2004) (new facts must likely change the result to justify reopening)
Alavez‑Hernandez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir.) (economic burdens qualify as persecution only if severe enough to threaten life or freedom)
Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 876 (8th Cir.) (standard for objective well‑founded fear: credible, direct, specific evidence)
Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858 (8th Cir.) (BIA may deny motion to reopen for failure to make prima facie showing)
Ortiz‑Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481 (8th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of BIA denials)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (U.S. 2010) (jurisdictional framework; standard of review principles)
Gitau v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 906 (8th Cir.) (definition of agency abuse of discretion)
Fei Yan Zhu v. Attorney General, 744 F.3d 268 (3d Cir.) (foreign documents may be authenticated by indicia of reliability other than foreign government certification)
Ji Cheng Ni v. Holder, 715 F.3d 620 (7th Cir.) (allowing alternative methods to authenticate foreign documents)
Yan Rong Zhao v. Holder, 728 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.) (failure to obtain certification is not necessarily a bar; other authentication methods may suffice)
Ngengwe v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir.) (failure to meet asylum standard generally precludes withholding/CAT relief)
Chen v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 861 (7th Cir.) (prior remand directing BIA to clarify financial exactions and classification of force vs. inducement)