NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-2959 ______________ GUANG LIN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1 : A098-694-619) Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman ______________ Argued on June 12, 2019 BEFORE: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Filed: August 23, 2019) ______________ Theodore N. Cox (argued) Law Office of Theodore N. Cox 325 Broadway Suite 201 New York, NY 10007 Attorney for Petitioner Gregory A. Pennington, Jr. United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Robert D. Tennyson, Jr. (argued) United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Room 2043 450 5th Street, N.W. P.O. Box 878 Washington, DC 20001 Attorneys for Respondent ______________ OPINION* ______________ COWEN, Circuit Judge. Guang Lin petitions for review of a decision and order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen. Because the BIA failed to meaningfully consider the evidence presented by Lin, we will grant her petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand for further proceedings. I. Lin and her husband, Mou Zeng Chen, are natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China. Lin entered the United States without being admitted or paroled, and Chen entered without valid entry documents. Conceding removability, Lin filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 Torture (“CAT”), with Chen as a rider on her application. At her June 13, 2008 hearing, Lin testified that, since her arrival, she had given birth to three United States citizen children and that she feared she would be forcibly sterilized for violating China’s family planning policies if returned. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied her application for relief. Dismissing Lin’s administrative appeal on November 13, 2009, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Lin failed to establish that her fear of coercive sterilization was objectively reasonable. On November 4, 2010, this Court denied the petition for review, concluding that “Petitioners have not shown that the record compels a finding that Lin has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.” Lin v. Att’y Gen., 400 F. App’x 656, 658 (3d Cir. 2010). In 2018, Lin filed a motion to reopen with the BIA. She argued that “[n]ew and previously unavailable evidence demonstrates the heightened enforcement of the family planning policy in Respondent’s home locale, Lianjiang County, Fujian Province, and the clear likelihood that coercion will be used against Ms. Lin if she is removed to China.” (AR37.) The BIA denied her motion on the grounds that Lin “has not demonstrated materially changed country conditions in China since her proceedings in 2008 to warrant an exception to the time limit for her motion to reopen, and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals