WPC9 s ')`U؎CM! 0v$" 0`" 0`" 0`Z# 0.# 0`# 08H$ 0$ 02R% 0% 0:N& 0Y& 0_& 0@' 08( 0P) B** D/* D+-+ 0X+ D/, 0 - 06- 0. 0:. 0^/ 0<}/ 1e/U60U>T0U*0 0N0{ 13!6-&7 1uS7 7277HP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX< 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XXXX    =\XXdd=    0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New RegularԨf;Z ^#; :i+003|x TABLE AUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- -*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &   d*// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5 (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,KS*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4NV2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS <z:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7J(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SV\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X7&  d dI)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7M(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SV\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X7I)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8KS6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  "#$%&()* 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(O$ q $XXXX  =XXdd=    4    _ԀDongapparentlymeanttoinvoketheLincourt'sobservation  thatthespouseofanindividualwhohasbeensubjectedtocoercive  populationcontrolmeasures,althoughnotautomaticallyeligible \ forasylum,mightneverthelessbeeligibleundersection601(a)'s 2 "otherresistance"provision.SeeLin,494F.3dat313.  $XXXX  =XXdd=    2    __ԀTwoothercircuitsreachedthesameconclusioninsubsequent  cases.SeeYuv.U.S._Att'y_ԀGen.,568F.3d1328,133233(11th  Cir.2009)(per_curiam_);Lin-_Zheng_v._Att'y_ԀGen.,557F.3d147,149 \ (3dCir.2009)(enbanc). $XXXX  =XXdd=    *    _OftheEighthCircuit,sittingbydesignation. ## u Xd#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)]i)  $XXXX  =XXdd=    3    _ԀDong'sbriefisnotamodelofclaritywithrespecttothe  reliefrequested.Forthesakeofthoroughness,weconsiderallof  thepossibilitiessuggestedbyhisfilings. !XXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! XXXX 0X X     \hUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals S 0  FortheFirstCircuit  \ S XX \  A') ` dE< ` A   No.082083 K  @#_JIA_Ԁ_DUAN_ԀDONG,  G  @XX%Petitioner,   @tt)v. O  @  ERICH.HOLDER,JR.,ATTORNEYGENERAL, K  @XX%Respondent.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ PETITIONFORREVIEWOFANORDEROFTHEBOARD 8   OFIMMIGRATIONAPPEALS 4 A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   Boudin,Hansen,[ #  *      ׀andLipez, G CircuitJudges.@@((  A') ` dE<N ` A O "       TheodoreN.Coxonbriefforpetitioner. 4!$   ManuelA.Palau,TrialAttorney,OfficeofImmigration  "Z% Litigation,MichaelF.Hertz,ActingAssistantAttorneyGeneral, "0& andTerriJ.Scadron,AssistantDirector,onbriefforrespondent. #' *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  8&!*8&!  SI&!+ @@40122@@SNovember6,2009 r'"-  RHCH(#." @@40122 @@ R(&!/  (  * !   *J&1? \h \8  XXdd8 \    *,X` XX* ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Petitioner_Jia_Ԁ_Duan_ԀDong,a  citizenofChina,seeksreviewofadecisionoftheBoardof N ImmigrationAppeals("BIA")affirmingthedenialofhisapplication J forasylum.DongarguesthattheBIAerroneouslyfailedto   considerwhetherhequalifiesforasylumundersection601(a)of R   theIllegalImmigrationReformandImmigrantResponsibilityActof  N  1996,Pub.L.No.104-208,110Stat.3009-546,whichextends   refugeestatustocertainindividualswhohavebeenorwillbe V  subjectedtocoercivepopulationcontrolproceduressuchas R involuntarysterilization,orwhohavebeenorwillbepersecuted  forresistingacoercivepopulationcontrolprogram. Z  ` ConcludingthattheBIAdidnoterr,wedenythe V petition.    I.  ^ ^ ` Dong,acitizenofChina,enteredtheUnitedStates &v withoutadmissionorparoleatanunknownportofentryonthe " MexicanborderonMarch10,2004.Severalmonthslater,on ~ ! December10,2004,Dongfiledanapplicationforasylum, *"z# withholdingofremoval,andprotectionundertheUnitedNations #&% ConventionAgainstTorture.TheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity % ' commencedremovalproceedingsonFebruary3,2005.OnMay3,2005, .'~") animmigrationjudge("_IJ_")foundDongremovableasanalien (*$+ presentintheUnitedStateswithoutadmissionorparole,astatus *%- heconceded.See8U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(_i_).Ahearingonthe 2,'/ meritsofDong'sasylumapplicationthenoccurredbeforethesame  _IJ_ԀonJuly7,2005. \  ` Accordingtopetitioner'stestimony,aswellasother X evidencebeforethe_IJ_,Dongwasbornin1963inFuzhou,the   capitalcityofChina's_Fujian_ԀProvince.DongwasraisedinFuzhou `  andeventuallytookajobinalocalpaperfactory.OnNovember  \  28,1990,Dongmarried_Kangzhen_ԀJianginatraditionalceremony.   ThemarriagewasregisteredwithauthoritiesonJune17,1991,and, d  onAugust1,1991,_Kangzhen_Ԁgavebirthtotheirfirstchild,a `  girl.Twomonthsafterthebirth,Chinesefamilyplanning   authoritiesrequired_Kangzhen_Ԁtosubmittotheinsertionofan h intrauterinedevice("IUD").Dongwasnotpresentwhenthis d occurred.Afterwards,_Kangzhen_Ԁwasrequiredtoregularlyreportto  alocalhospitalforgynecologicalexamstoensurethattheIUD l remainedinplace. h  ` DuringonesuchexaminationonMay10,1993,nurses  discoveredthat_Kangzhen_Ԁhadbecomepregnantagain,despitethe p  IUD.AccordingtoDong,whowasnotpresentattheexam,_Kangzhen_ !l" pleadedwithfamilyplanningauthoritiesatthehospitaltoallow "$ hertocontinuethepregnancy,buttheyforcedhertoabortit. t$& Nursesphysicallyrestrained_Kangzhen_Ԁbypinningherdown,andthe  &p!( abortionprocedure,whichlastedaboutanhour,waspainful.Dong '#*  describedheras"mentally_unnormal_"afterherreturnhome. x)$, _ ` Aftertheabortion,authoritiesfittedKangzhenwitha   newIUDandagainrequiredhertosubmittogynecologicalexams \ threetimesayear.In1995,fouryearsafterthebirthoftheir X firstchild,DongandKangzhenappliedfora"birthpermit"tohave   asecondchild.AccordingtoDong,theauthoritiesinformedhimat `  thattimethatChineselawwouldrequirethatheorKangzhenbe  \  sterilizedafterthesecondbirth.Thepermitwaseventually   approved;onJune9,1996,Kangzhengavebirthtoaboy. d   ` Dongtestifiedthatshortlyafterthebirthofhissecond `  child,agroupofofficialscametohishometoenforcethe   sterilizationpolicy.AlthoughDongwasatworkatthetime,his h wifelatertoldhimthattheofficialsbroughthertoalocal d hospitalandforcedhertoundergoasterilizationprocedure.By  thetimeDonglearnedofthesituationandtraveledtothe l hospital,theprocedurehadalreadybeencompleted. h  ` DongclaimsthatheresolvedtoleaveChinaafterthe  sterilization,explainingthattheincidentwas"apermanentscar p  thattheyputintoourlife,anditwasaformofpersecution." !l" Becausehedidnotwanttoleavewhilethechildrenwereyoung, "$ however,hewaitedfouryearsbeforemakinghisfirstattemptto t$& leaveChina.Afterseveralunsuccessfulattempts,heleftChinaon  &p!( January26,2004,eightyearsafterhiswife'ssterilization. '#*  KangzhenandthechildrenremainedinFuzhou. x)$, _ ` The_IJ_ԀdeniedDong'sapplication,findingthatDong's   assertionthatheleftChinabecauseofthesterilizationwasnot \ credible.Anappealfollowed,andtheBIAremandedthematterto X the_IJ_ԀforfurtherfindingsastowhetherDong'stestimonyabout   theabortionandsterilizationprocedurewascredible.The_IJ_ `  issuedasecondorderonMay10,2007inwhichhefoundthatnone  \  ofDong'stestimonywascredible,andheagaindeniedthe   applicationonthatground.Dongappealedoncemore,andtheBIA d  affirmedthe_IJ_'sdecisiononJuly28,2008.TheBoarddeclinedto `  addresstheissueofDong'scredibility,findinginsteadthat   Dong'stestimony,eveniftrue,didnotestablishhiseligibility h forasylum,withholdingofremoval,orprotectionunderthe d ConventionAgainstTorture.Dongthenfiledthepresentpetition  forreview,whichislimitedtothedenialofasylum. l    II.  h ) ` TheImmigrationandNationalityActauthorizesthe 0 AttorneyGeneral,inhisdiscretion,tograntasylumtoanalien   whoqualifiesasa"refugee"withinthemeaningoftheAct.See8 8!" U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A);INSv.Elias-_Zacarias_,502U.S.478,481 "4$ (1992);Touch_v._ԀHolder,568F.3d32,38(1stCir.2009).Theterm $& "refugee"includesanypersonwhoisunableorunwillingtoreturn <&!( tohiscountryofnationality"becauseofpersecutionora '8#* well-foundedfearofpersecutiononaccountofrace,religion, )$, nationality,membershipinaparticularsocialgroup,orpolitical @+&. _opinion."8U.S.C.1101(a)(42).Tobeeligibleforasylum,an  applicantmustthereforeestablishasathresholdmatterthathe \ hassufferedpastpersecutiononaccountofoneofthefive X protectedgrounds,orthathehasawellfoundedfearoffuture   persecutiononaccountofoneofthosegrounds.See8C.F.R. `   1208.13(a)(b),1208.14(a).  \   ` Dongclaimsthathewasandwillbepersecuted"on   accountof...politicalopinion,"relyingonthebroadened d  definitionofthatphrasesetforthinsection601(a)ofthe `  IllegalImmigrationReformandImmigrantResponsibilityActof   1996,Pub.L.No.104-208,110Stat.3009-546.Section601(a) h provides: d 8 ` [A]personwhohasbeenforcedtoaborta  pregnancyortoundergoinvoluntary  sterilization,orwhohasbeenpersecutedfor l failureorrefusaltoundergosuchaprocedure B orforotherresistancetoacoercive h populationcontrolprogram,shallbedeemedto > havebeenpersecutedonaccountofpolitical  opinion,andapersonwhohasawellfounded  fearthatheorshewillbeforcedtoundergo p  suchaprocedureorsubjecttopersecutionfor F ! suchfailure,refusal,orresistanceshallbe !l" deemedtohaveawellfoundedfearof !B# persecutiononaccountofpoliticalopinion.0"$` x` x 8U.S.C.1101(a)(42).Congressenactedsection601(a)"forthe t$& expresspurposeofoverturningtheBIA'sdecisioninMatterof  &p!( Chang,20I.&N.Dec.38(B.I.A.1989),"whichhadheldthat '#* involuntarysterilizationpursuanttoChina's"onechild"policy x)$, didnotconstitutepersecutiononaccountofaprotectedground. $+t&. _Lin-_Zheng_v._Att'y_ԀGen.,557F.3d147,151(3dCir.2009)(enbanc)  (citingH.R.Rep.No.104-469(I),at173(1996)).Asthe1996 \ amendmentmakesclear,anindividualwhohasbeen(orwillbe) X subjectedtocoercivepopulationcontrolproceduresisnow"deemed"   tohavebeenpersecutedonaccountofpoliticalopinion,asare `  individualswhohavebeen(orwillbe)persecutedforfailingor  \  refusingtoundergosuchaprocedureorforresistingacoercive   populationcontrolprogram. d   ` TheBIAoriginallyinterpretedtheinvoluntary `  abortion/sterilizationclauseofsection601(a)toextendtoboth   thevictimsofthosemeasuresandtheirspouses.SeeMatterof h C-Y-Z-,21I.&N.Dec.915,918(_B.I.A._Ԁ1997)(enbanc)("[_T]he_ d spouseofawomanwhohasbeenforcedtoundergoanabortionor  sterilizationprocedurecantherebyestablishpastpersecution."); l _see_alsoMatterofS-L-L-,24I.&N.Dec.1,4(B.I.A.2006)(en h banc)(reaffirmingandclarifyingtheholdingofMatterofC-Y-Z-);  _Zeng_v.Gonzales,436F.3d26,28(1stCir.2006)(acknowledging p  theBIA'sinterpretation).Dongreliedonthatdoctrinewhich !l" weshallrefertoasthe"_spousal_Ԁbootstrappingrule"throughout "$ theproceedingsbelow,arguingbeforetheIJandtheBIAthathe t$& waseligibleforasylumbecauseofKangzhen'sforcedabortionand  &p!( sterilization. '#*  ` ThelegallandscapeshiftedduringthependencyofDong's x)$, secondappealtotheBIA,however.Beforethebriefswerefiled, $+t&. theSecondCircuitheldthattheBIA's_spousal_Ԁbootstrappingrule  contravenedtheunambiguoustextofsection601(a)._Z #  2      _ԀSeeLinv. \ U.S._Dep't_ԀofJustice,494F.3d296,300(2dCir.2007)(enbanc). X Then,afterDonghadsubmittedhisbrieftotheBIA,theAttorney   Generalissuedadecisionexpresslyabrogatingthe_spousal_ `  bootstrappingrule.SeeMatterofJS,24I.&N.Dec.520,536  \  37(A.G.2008)("[_T]he_Ԁspouseofthephysicalvictimof[acoercive   populationcontrol]procedureisnotsomeonewhocanbeconsidered d  persetohavefaced,ortohaveawell-foundedfearoffacing, `  'persecution''onaccountof''resisting'acoercivepopulation   control_program . . . based_Ԁsolelyonthefactthatheorsheis h marriedtothevictim.")(emphasisinoriginal).TheBIAconcluded d thatDong'sasylumclaimwasforeclosedbytheAttorneyGeneral's  decisionandaffirmedthe_IJ_'sdenialofhisapplicationonthat l basis. h  ` Dongdoesnotchallengethevalidityorapplicabilityof  theAttorneyGeneral'sdecisioninthepresentpetition.Instead, p  henowclaimsthathisownactionsbringhimwithinthe"other !l" resistance"clauseofsection601(a).See8U.S.C. 1101(a)(42) "$ (providingthatanindividualwhowaspersecuted,orhasawell t$& foundedfearofbeingpersecuted,for"otherresistancetoa  &p!( coercivepopulationcontrolprogram"shallbe"deemedtohavea  wellfoundedfearofpersecutiononaccountofpoliticalopinion"). \ Tobeeligibleforasylumunderthatprovision,anapplicantmust X showthatheengagedinresistancetoacoercivepopulationcontrol   programandthathewaspersecuted,orhasawellfoundedfearof `  beingpersecuted,forthatresistance.SeeLin,494F.3dat313;  \  Liv.Ashcroft,356F.3d1153,115860(9thCir.2004)(enbanc).   AccordingtoDong,theBIAimproperlyrefusedtoconsiderwhether d  hisflightfromChinaconstituted"resistance"withinthemeaning `  ofsection601(a).Hethereforeasksustodooneofthreethings:   (1)_ remand_ԀthemattertotheBIAwithinstructionstodetermine h whetherhisflightrendershimeligibleforasylum;(2)_ rule_Ԁasa d matteroflawthathisflightrendershimeligibleforasylum;or  (3)_ instruct_ԀtheBIAtoremandthemattertothe_IJ_Ԁforfurther l _factfinding_Ԁonthe"otherresistance"issue._ #  3       h  ` Dong'sfirstrequestisforeclosedbytheprocedural  backgroundofhiscase.HisargumentsuggeststhattheBIA p  arbitrarilyfailedtoconsiderapotentiallyoutcomedeterminative !l" argumentthatwasclearlybeforeit.Cf._Cordero_-_Trejo_v.INS,40 "$ F.3d482,492(1stCir.1994)(remandingforfurtherproceedings t$& because,interalia,theBIAfailedtoconsidertheapplicant's  &p!( "patternorpractice"persecutionargument);_Abdulai_v.Ashcroft, '#* 239F.3d542,549(3dCir.2001)("Adecisionmakermustactually  considertheevidenceandargumentthat_apartypresents_.") \ (_internal_Ԁquotationmarksandcitationsomitted).Itistruethat X theBIAdidnotconsiderwhetherDong'sflightamountedto"other   resistance."However,Dongneverpresentedthatargumenttothe `  BIAinthefirstplace.Aswehaveindicated,Dongreliedalmost  \  exclusivelyonthe_spousal_Ԁbootstrappingrulethroughoutthe   administrativeproceedings.Hedidnotmention"otherresistance" d  atalluntilhissecondappealtotheBIA.Eventhen,hedidnot `  arguethathehadresistedacoercivepopulationcontrolprogramby   leavingChina.Rather,heaskedforaremandsothathecould h attempttomusterunspecifiedevidenceofresistance: d 8 ` Inthealternative,thecaseshouldbe  remandedtoallowtherespondenttotestify  morefullyastotheeventsthatoccurredwhen l hiswifewasforciblyabortedandsterilized B toseeifhisactionsmayhaveconstituted h "otherresistance"asrequiredbytherecent > SecondCircuitdecisioninLinv.U.S.  DepartmentofJustice.VTY #  4      ` x` x PuttingtoonesidetheissueofwhethertheBIAerroneouslydenied F ! Dong'srequestforaremandforfurther_factfinding_,seeinfra,we !B# cannotfaulttheBoardforfailingtoconsideranaltogether #% differentmeritsargumentthatwasneverurgedbeforeit.SeeYu J% ' v.Gonzales,502F.3d17,20(1stCir.2007)(rejectingthe  applicant'sattemptto"changethenatureof[herforcedabortion] \ claimbyshiftingherfocusintheappellatetribunals"toher X resistanceefforts).   Ѐ ` Dong'ssecondrequestthatwefindasamatteroflaw `  thathisflightrendershimeligibleforasylumfailsfor  \  similarreasons.Wehaveconsistentlyheldthat"argumentsnot   raisedbeforetheBIAarewaivedduetoafailuretoexhaust d  administrativeremedies."SeeMolinaDe_Massenet_v.Gonzales,485 `  F.3d661,664(1stCir.2007).Aswehaveexplained,Dongnever   arguedbeforetheBIAthathisflightfromChinaconstituted"other h resistancetoacoercivepopulationcontrolprogram."Hisattempt d toraisethatargumentforthefirsttimeinthiscourtis  thereforeunavailing.Id.;seealso_ Olujoke_ v.Gonzales,411F.3d l 16,2223(1stCir.2005)(rejectinganapplicant'sattemptto h "resurrect"aclaiminthecourtofappealswheretheapplicant  "failedtomakeanydevelopedargumentationinsupportofthat p  claimbeforetheBIA").  !l"  ` Finally,totheextentthatDongmeanstochallengethe "$ BIA'srefusaltoremandforfurther_ factfinding_ ,wereviewthat t$& decisionforabuseofdiscretion._ Pakasi_ v.Holder,577F.3d44,  &p!( 48(1stCir.2009).Wemayreverseunderthatdeferentialstandard '#* onlyifthedenialwas"madewithoutarationalexplanation, x)$, inexplicablydepartedfromtheestablishedpolicies,orrestedon $+t&. animpermissiblebasis."Id.(internalquotationmarksand  citationsomitted).Noneofthosefactorsarepresenthere.Dong \ didnotexplaintotheBIAwhatadditionalfactshewouldhave X presentedifthecasehadbeenremanded.Nordidtherecordbefore   theBIAcontainanyobvioussignsofresistancethatcouldhave `  beenexploredfurther.Facedwitharecordandbriefsthatfailed  \  toshowhowfurther_factfinding_ԀwouldaidDong,theBIAproperly   exerciseditsdiscretionindecliningtoremand.Seeid.(finding d  thattheBIAdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrefusingtoremand `  whentheapplicantfailedtopresentanyevidencethatwouldhave   alteredtheoutcomeonremand). h  ` Thepetitionforreviewis DENIED .