NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-1730 _____________ HAI QUANG LIN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A078 865 467) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 14, 2017 __________ Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 16, 2018) ____________ OPINION ∗ ____________ CHAGARES, Circuit Judge: ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Hai Quang Lin, a Chinese native and citizen, was denied asylum in 2003. Thereafter, Lin remained in the United States, and sired three children. In 2015, Lin filed a motion to reopen his immigration proceedings and reapply for asylum, on account of the births of his children. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied the motion. Lin petitions for review of that ruling. Lin argues that because China enforces its family planning policy more aggressively today than it did when he first applied for asylum in 2003, he would face persecution upon return to China for exceeding its two child birth quota. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen, we will deny the petition for review. I. We write solely for the parties and therefore recite only the facts necessary to our disposition. Lin is from Langqi Town, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, China. Appendix (“App.”) 5. He came to the United States without authorization in 2002. In 2003, Lin sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), asserting a fear of persecution due to his participation in Falun Gong and his illegal departure from China. His application was denied, and his appeal to the BIA and subsequent petition for review to this Court were unsuccessful. Lin v. Gonzales, 160 F. App’x 155, 157 (3d Cir. 2005). In 2015, Lin filed with the BIA a motion to reopen and reapply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. 1 The basis for this motion was Lin’s fear 1 Because Lin has failed to make any arguments in his petition with regard to his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT, we deem such arguments forfeited 2 of persecution upon returning to China due to the births of his two children, which was a violation of China’s family planning policy. Lin argued that the use of coercive measures, such as sterilizations, in the enforcement of China’s family planning policy had drastically increased since the time of his initial immigration proceedings. The BIA denied Lin’s motion in 2016, determining that the evidence Lin submitted showed that these measures were not more than a continuation of policies and methods that were in use in 2003. Lin filed a petition for review. Thereafter, the matter was remanded to the BIA on the Government’s motion. Lin v. Att’y Gen. of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals