Yan Fang Chen v. Attorney General United States
698 F. App'x 706
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Yan Fang Chen, a native of Fujian, China, entered the U.S. illegally in 1999 and sought asylum based on opposition to China’s family planning policy after his wife allegedly was forced to have an abortion.
- An Immigration Judge denied asylum in 2002 for lack of credibility; the BIA affirmed in 2003.
- In 2013 Chen filed a motion to reopen, asserting increased coercive enforcement in China (forced abortions/sterilizations) and presenting documentary and affidavit evidence, including province- and city-level materials and CECC reports.
- The BIA denied the motion as untimely and concluded the evidence showed continued, not materially changed, enforcement; it held Chen failed to show it was more likely than not he would face sterilization.
- This Court previously remanded, instructing the BIA to consider province-level and city documents and to address the CECC reports rather than selectively citing them.
- On second review the BIA again denied reopening; the Third Circuit finds the BIA did not adequately explain why potentially favorable evidence was rejected and remands again for explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Chen's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chen’s untimely motion to reopen shows a material change in country conditions excusing the time bar | Evidence (affidavits, province/city documents, CECC reports) shows increased coercive enforcement in Fujian and risk of sterilization for Chen | Evidence reflects continued enforcement, not a material change; Chen thus fails to meet the changed-circumstances exception | Remanded: BIA must explain why potentially favorable evidence does not show a material change; current opinion insufficient |
| Whether the BIA meaningfully considered evidence favorable to Chen | BIA ignored or failed to address specific favorable items (e.g., affidavit on male sterilization, city/province documents) | BIA treated record as showing continuity and cited numerous exhibits supporting that view | Held: BIA did not demonstrate it considered or adequately explained rejection of favorable evidence; remand required |
| Whether province- and city-level evidence was properly evaluated | Such localized evidence may corroborate enhanced enforcement and Chen’s fear | Government treats the evidence as reflecting episodic or non-material incidents | Held: Court cannot discern BIA’s reasoning; BIA must clarify whether and why such evidence was rejected |
| Whether the BIA properly used CECC and other reports in its analysis | Chen: BIA must consider reports in full, not selectively | Government: selective citations suffice to support continuity finding | Held: BIA was instructed on prior remand to consider CECC reports fully; here its analysis remained inadequate, so explanation required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chen v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., [citation="635 F. App'x 61"] (3d Cir. 2015) (prior remand directing BIA to address province/city evidence and CECC reports)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (BIA has broad discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen)
- Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (review standard: reverse only if BIA’s decision arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law)
- Zhu v. Att’y Gen., 744 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2014) (BIA must indicate consideration of evidence favorable to movant and explain rejection)
- Lin-Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (recognizing relief based on persecution to the individual, including male sterilization)
- Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2008) (court requires explanation when BIA’s reasoning leaves appellate court unable to assess reasonableness)