Yi Mei Zhu v. Attorney General of the United States
680 F. App'x 85
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners Yi Mei Zhu and Jie Jiang, Chinese nationals, initially applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on fear of forced sterilization under China’s one-child policy; IJ denied applications in 2006 and BIA dismissed appeal in 2009.
- First motion to reopen (2013) added claim of persecution as underground (house) Christians; BIA denied (2014) for failure to show changed country conditions or material evidence specific to Fujian province; Third Circuit remanded to require meaningful consideration of submitted documents and later denied petition for review when petitioners did not challenge religious-persecution findings.
- Second motion to reopen (May 2016) relied on two ChinaAid articles reporting demolition of a Christian church in Fujian in 2016 and removal of protesters.
- BIA denied the second motion (June 29, 2016), reasoning that a single incident, without evidence of physical injury or broader provincial targeting, did not show a material change in country conditions sufficient to reopen the case.
- Petitioners timely sought Third Circuit review, arguing the ChinaAid articles established materially changed conditions for religious persecution in Fujian.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen based on changed country conditions | The 2016 ChinaAid articles showing a church demolition and removal of protesters in Fujian demonstrate a material change in country conditions warranting reopening | The single-incident reports do not show a material, province-specific change or likely targeting of petitioners; they are insufficient to meet the prima facie asylum showing required for reopening | Denied — BIA did not abuse its broad discretion; a lone incident in the record was insufficient to establish material change in country conditions |
| Whether the new evidence was material and previously unavailable | The articles are new, province-specific evidence of intensified persecution of unregistered churches | Even if new, the evidence is not sufficiently severe or widespread to be material to asylum eligibility | Held that evidence was not material for purposes of an exception to the 90-day filing rule |
| Whether physical injury is required to show persecution from the demolition incident | Petitioners argue the demolition and removal of protesters are persecutory acts supporting reopening | Government/BIA treated absence of injuries as relevant to severity; did not impose blanket rule requiring physical injury | BIA did not require physical injury; it merely observed none was shown and found the conduct insufficient in context |
| Standard of review / burden on motion to reopen | Motion to reopen requires prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum and is reviewed for abuse of discretion | BIA has broad discretion; factual findings reviewed under substantial-evidence standard | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review and upheld BIA decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Fei Yan Zhu v. Attorney Gen., 744 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2014) (BIA must meaningfully address specific evidence submitted in motions to reopen)
- Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2004) (motions to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion; prima facie asylum showing required)
- Korytnyuk v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2005) (factual findings by BIA reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard)
- Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580 (3d Cir. 1994) (BIA’s broad discretion on motions to reopen will not be disturbed unless arbitrary or irrational)