Yan Qing Chen v. Attorney General of the United States
Docket: No. 08-3241
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; October 22, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Yan Qing Chen sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) final removal decision. Charged with removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(A), Chen, a native of China who entered the U.S. without documentation, applied for asylum and other protections in October 2005, citing fears of persecution due to his two U.S.-born children, which he claimed violated China's family planning policies. The IJ denied his application, finding he did not meet the burden of proof for asylum or withholding of removal. Chen appealed to the BIA, which upheld the IJ's decision and denied his motion to remand for additional evidence. The BIA found that Chen had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution, a requirement for asylum eligibility, which involves both a genuine and objectively reasonable fear. The BIA’s decision is reviewed under a substantial evidence standard, meaning it must be upheld unless the evidence overwhelmingly supports a contrary conclusion. The BIA concluded that Chen's testimony—regarding the existence of population control policies he observed in China—was insufficient to establish his claims. The review of the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is conducted for abuse of discretion, where a reversal is warranted only if the decision is arbitrary or contrary to law. Following the birth of a second child, either spouse must undergo sterilization according to Chinese policy. A witness testified he was unaware of any cases involving individuals returning to China with two foreign-born children facing forced sterilization. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) accepted the witness's credibility but determined that the evidence presented did not establish a reasonable likelihood of sterilization upon return to China, referencing recent State Department reports that supported this view. Chen argued that the BIA did not adequately consider the evidence he submitted, but the court found that the BIA's acknowledgment of the extensive record was sufficient. The BIA is not obligated to address every piece of evidence in detail but must demonstrate it has considered the relevant issues. Chen's motion to remand the case to the Immigration Judge (IJ) was denied because it lacked substantive argument and the majority of the documents were available before the IJ's earlier decision. The BIA determined that the evidence was not new or material, thus properly exercising its discretion in the denial. The court noted that Chen waived his claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) by not pursuing it on appeal. Chen argued that an expert's opinion supported his fear of sterilization; however, the BIA found that the opinion was not sufficient to counter the skepticism reflected in recent State Department reports regarding China's family planning policies. Consequently, the petition for review was denied.