Chen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Docket No. 06-0762-AG.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Per Curiam
• Citation: 468 F.3d 109
• Docket Number: Docket No. 06-0762-AG.
• Decision Date: 06 November 2006
• Parties: Jin Xiu CHEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Respondents.

468 F.3d 109 Jin Xiu CHEN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Respondents. Docket No. 06-0762-AG. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Submitted: September 25, 2006. Decided: November 6, 2006.

Gregory Marotta, Law Office of Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ, for petitioner.

William J. Leone, United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, Terry Fox, Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for respondents.

Before: POOLER, SOTOMAYOR, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Jin Xiu Chen, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review

Page 110

of a January 20, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the September 21, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Jeffrey S. Chase denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Jin Xiu Chen, No. A96 257 717 (B.I.A. Jan. 20, 2006), aff'g No. A96 257 717 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 21, 2004). In its order, the BIA also denied Chen's motion to remand. In re Jin Xiu Chen, No. A96 257 717 (B.I.A. Jan. 20, 2006). Chen's sole claim for relief is that she fears forced sterilization if she is returned to her home city of Changle City, Fujian Province, because she has three U.S.-born children. For the reasons to be discussed, because the documents identified in Shou Yung Guo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2006), and several documents submitted by Chen that the BIA did not address, suggest the existence an official policy of forced sterilization in Changle City, we remand this case to the BIA to determine the validity, scope, and import of these documents and to reconsider Chen's claim of future persecution in light of them. In an accompanying summary order, we address the other arguments presented in Chen's petition for review.

The IJ found that Chen had failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that she would face forced sterilization if returned to her home city in China. Both this Court and the BIA have concluded that the evidence previously available to support Chinese asylum applicants' claims of forced sterilization, including the oft-submitted "Aird Affidavit" prepared by retired demographer and immigration expert Dr. John S. Aird, was inadequate to establish the existence of an official policy of forced sterilization on the part of any Chinese province or locality, and thus insufficient to show that the applicants were likely to face forced sterilization if returned to China. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274-76 (2d Cir.2006) (finding that the Aird Affidavit was insufficient to establish the existence of a policy of forced sterilization in China); Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (concluding that the petitioner's claim that he faced forced sterilization in China was "speculative at best" because he offered as support for his claim only his own uncorroborated testimony that his sister-in-law had been forcibly sterilized); In re C-C-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 899, 903 (B.I.A. 2006) (finding the Aird Affidavit insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for relief on a claim of forced sterilization). With several exceptions that we discuss below, most of the evidence Chen submitted, including the Aird Affidavit and her uncorroborated testimony that her elder sister, paternal aunt, and sister-in-law had been forcibly sterilized, was too general or speculative under our precedent and the BIA's to establish the existence of an official...