Archive for the China One Child Policy Category

Will NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood or Obama support this rally? China’s One-Child Policy protest Sept 25th

Posted in Abortion, China One Child Policy, Feticide, forced abortion, gendercide, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 21, 2011 by saynsumthn

31st Anniversary of One-Child Policy Sparks U.S. Protests, Vigils Led By Tiananmen Square Commander-In-Chief

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — ***Sept. 25: Anniversary of China’s One-Child Policy***
Sept. 22 – Oct. 4: Chai Ling–Revolutionary, Nobel Prize Nominee, Harvard MBA–Leads Nationwide Remembrances, Testifies Before Congress and Releases Memoir Banned in China

“Chai Ling is one of the most courageous women I know … . from her early days as a self-possessed student thrust suddenly onto the worldwide stage to her current role as a fierce defender of women and girls.” — Cindi Leive, editor-in-chief, Glamour magazine

“Sept. 25, 2011 marks the continuation of China’s ‘gendercide‘ ‘war on girls,’ ” said Chai Ling, the woman who, at age 23, was the commander-in-chief of the 1989 Tiananmen Square student rebellion. On this 31st anniversary, Ling–now a U.S. citizen exiled from China–continues her fight against China’s human rights atrocities by leading a U.S. protest and nationwide campaign against the One-Child Policy.

Ling and two other witnesses will testify Sept. 22 for the Congressional Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights to share stories of coerced abortions at the hands of the Chinese government, some 37,000 per day according to China’s National Family Planning Commission.

While in Washington, Ling will participate at a Sept. 23 rally, “37 Seconds of Silence,” part of a nationwide vigil organized by her advocacy group All Girls Allowed. Sept. 22- 25, more than 200 universities and churches nationwide–including Harvard, Northeastern and Notre Dame–will host 37-second vigils of silence to honor the 37 million girls* missing, through infanticide, abortion or abandonment, due to the Chinese law.

“It is this generation’s responsibility to speak up, and students are beginning to see that,” said Ling. “The good news is, with this kind of momentum, we believe that we can end ‘gendercide’ in our lifetime.”

A victim of China’s One-Child Policy, Ling only recently gained enough closure to share her full story in A Heart for Freedom, which reveals the truth behind her role in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, her status as one of the most-wanted women in China, her own experience with government-forced abortion, and how she escaped to America. Banned from the very country she has long fought to save, Ling’s human rights work has resulted in two nominations for a Nobel Peace Prize and recognition by Glamour magazine as “Woman of the Year.”

Sept. 22: Open Congressional Hearing in Washington, 2:00 p.m. Rayburn House Office Building, room 220
Sept. 23: Ling at “37 Seconds of Silence” Vigil, George Washington University,
Can facilitate interview with participating student, Elliot School of International Affairs, room 505
Sept. 22-25: Some 200 “37 Second of Silence” nationwide vigils remembering 37 million missing girls in China
Sept. 22-24 Interview Opportunity: Ling available for interview in Washington
Oct. 4 Memoir Release in U.S. – Banned in China: A Heart for Freedom (Tyndale, Oct. 2011)
Oct. 4-5 Interview Opportunity: Ling available for interview in New York

China’s One-Child Policy
The One-Child Policy, which limits Chinese families to having just one child, was established in 1980 as a response to an exploding Chinese population. Due to the Chinese preference for male children, sex-selective abortions, female infanticide and the abandonment of female children has become an integral part of Chinese culture over the last 31 years.

Groups wishing to hold a moment of silence ceremony can register at the All Girls Allowed website. A map of vigil locations is available.

Chai Ling is the founder of All Girls Allowed and founding president and chief operating officer of Jenzabar, Inc., a leading higher education software and services provider. She holds a M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, a M.L.A. in public affairs at Princeton University and a B.A. from Beijing University. Ling also established the Jenzabar Foundation, which supports inspirational humanitarian efforts of student leaders through grant opportunities. A key student leader herself in the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement, Ling was subsequently named Glamour Woman of the Year and nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Ling is author of the new book A Heart for Freedom. The hardcover memoir will release on Oct. 4, available nationwide.

All Girls Allowed aims to end gender discrimination in China through eradicating “gendercide” and assisting families who have baby girls, providing education and scholarships to abandoned girls, rescuing children from human trafficking and providing legal advocacy to mothers who have been victims of forced abortions or sterilization.
*Source: All Girls Allowed

September 22, Reggie Littlejohn will testify before Congress

Liu Dan was 21 years old and 9 months pregnant when family planning police grabbed her out of her home, dragged her to the local family planning office, and forcibly aborted her full term baby. They already knew from medical tests that she had high blood pressure and that a forced late term abortion would be dangerous for her. After the forced abortion, she lay alone and unconscious in an operating room in the family planning center. Sensing something was wrong, her fiancé burst into the room at 3:00 a.m. to find her bleeding from the eyes, nose, ears and mouth. Even so, the family planning police refused to call for emergency help, until her family insisted. Help arrived too late. Liu Dan died, along with her full term baby.

“The One Child Policy causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on earth. It is China’s war on women,” says Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. “Any discussion of women’s rights, or human rights, would be a charade if forced abortion in China is not front and center. It does not matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice on this issue. No one supports forced abortion, because it is not a choice. The Chinese forced abortion policy is systematic, institutionalized violence against women.”

Ms. Littlejohn will be among those testifying for the Committee on Foreign Affairs Congressional Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, on September 22 at 2:00 in Room 2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

In addition, she will testify regarding blind activist lawyer Chen Guangcheng, who exposed the fact that there were 130,000 forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations in Linyi County in 2005. The Chinese Communist Party imprisoned Chen for four years and has kept him and his family under strict house arrest since September, 2010. On February 9, 2011 Chen released a video describing the deplorable conditions of his house arrest. The next morning, Chen and his wife, Yuan Weijing, were “beaten senseless.” Chen’s family recently was moved to a “personal prison” build for them.

“This treatment of Chen is unconscionable. It shows the appalling lengths to which the CCP will go to silence a hero who has spoken up against forced abortion in China.”

Asian Spring? Will the Obama Admin side with Chinese Dissenters like he did the Arabs ?

Posted in China One Child Policy, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on August 24, 2011 by saynsumthn

Well…I doubt it?

From the Huffington Post:

BEIJING — A Communist Party leader has told China’s Internet companies to tighten control over material online as Beijing cracks down on dissent and tries to block the rise of Middle East-style protests.

The party secretary for Beijing, Liu Qi, issued the warning following a visit this week to Sina Corp., which operates a popular microblogging site, according to the party-published newspaper Beijing Daily.

Internet companies should “strengthen management and firmly prevent the spread of fake and harmful information,” Liu was quoted as saying after the visit Monday to Sina. He said companies should “resist fake and negative information.”

Communist authorities encourage Internet use for education and business but are uneasy about its potential to spread dissent, especially after social networking and other websites played a key role in protests that brought down governments in Egypt and Tunisia.

Beijing is in the midst of one of its most sweeping crackdowns on dissent in years and has detained or questioned hundreds of activists, lawyers and others.

The government tries to block access to foreign websites deemed subversive and Chinese operators of websites where the public can post comments are required to watch the material and remove any that violates censorship rules.

The government’s censorship rules prompted Google Inc. to close its China search engine last year. Mainland users can see Google’s Chinese-language search site in Hong Kong but access is slower and the company’s China market share has shrunk.


Pro-Life Leader Chris Smith: Biden Sold Out Chinese Women
Congressman Chris Smith, the head of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and chairman of the Executive-Congressional Commission on China, today criticized Vice President Joe Biden for his comments essentially supporting the one-child policy in China.

“China’s one-child policy is cruel and barbaric,” Smith said. “The Nuremberg trials properly prosecuted forced abortion as a crime against humanity. We don’t second guess. It’s hideous. Pregnant women without birth permits are hunted down. There are no single moms in China. It is illegal to have brothers or sisters. Picture all the people who have brothers and sisters—all the people you know who have brothers and sisters would be breaking the law in China.”

Smith noted that shortly after becoming U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton stated clearly that she was not going to allow human rights to ‘interfere’ with economic issues with China, a clear sign the Obama Administration was downgrading human rights as a priority.

“Obama didn’t say a word about any of the human rights crimes of Chinese President Hu Jintao when he visited Washington earlier this year; instead he hosted a state dinner for him.”

Smith, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who chairs its subcommittee on human rights, said as far back as 1984 Congress took away funding that provided U.S. financial support for the one Child Policy.

“The Vice President said he ‘fully understood’ the one child policy, and therefore he’s not ‘second guessing.’ The one child per couple policy is cruel, inhumane and the most egregious systematic attack on women ever. For the Vice President to publically state that he fully understands the one child policy is unconscionable. He and all of us should be defending the women of China from this state-sponsored cruelty of forced abortion and forced sterilization, not supporting and enabling it. Chinese women need advocates, not enablers. This Administration has long enabled this cruel policy by its silence and financial support for organizations like UNFPA that support the Chinese government’s brutal program. Tragically, it now offers its public support, as well.”

Smith earlier this year asked Clinton at a congressional hearing if she knew if forced abortions were brought up at meetings between Obama and Hu, to which she replied she did not know.

“Now we know,” Smith said. “They sold out. They’re just fine with the coercion.”

Smith recounted the recent congressional testimony of Chai Ling one of the Tiananmen Square democracy activists in 1989. Today she is Founder and President of All Girls Allowed, a group dedicated to ending the slaughter of innocent unborn babies in China that disproportionately impacts far more girls than boys.

“At a congressional press conference in June, Chai Ling pointed out that tens of millions of men will never marry in China due to the effects of gendercide, and that already there are some 37 million more males than females,” Smith said. “She then said sadly that the three most dangerous words—often a death sentence in China today are, ‘It’s a girl.’
“Since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in most of China,” Smith said. “If a woman is caught pregnant without explicit government authorization to give birth, she is forced to abort. Unwed mothers are all compelled to abort. Handicapped unborn children, if discovered, are killed by the state. Ruinous fines—up to ten times the combined salary of both parents—jail, torture, property confiscation, loss of employment, education opportunities, housing and health care are all weapons aggressively used by the family planning cadres to ensure compliance. No wonder over 500 Chinese women commit suicide each day in China.”

In his statement, Biden talked about the other set of concerns about the one-child policy — demographic — in that China will increasingly have similar problems to the United States in terms of paying for entitlements to the growing number of people retiring who will need government support to make ends meet and a smaller population of younger workers able to take care of those obligations.

“But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net,” Biden said in the prepared remarks. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

“So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that,” he continued.
Although he highlighted the demographic concerns, his statement that the United States is “not second-guessing” the forced-abortion, one-child policy and his essentially ignoring the forced abortions, sterilizations and other human rights abuses that accompany it, will surely upset pro-life advocates who have campaigned extensively against the one-child policy and supported the victims of it.

As Smith noted, the speech represents a second missed opportunity for the Obama administration to present a clear position against the policy that is one of the most egregious global human rights abuses in modern times.

Biden’s comments follow a visit earlier this year from China President Hu Jintao, where President Barack Obama apparently failed to ask the foreign leader about the problem of forced abortions on Chinese women. Ask during a U.S. House hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn’t say whether Obama brought up the massive human rights abuse millions of Chinese women endure if they break the country’s one-child family planning rules.

Video of Chinese activist who opposes China’s Forced Abortion policy emerges despite house arrest

Posted in Abortion, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, NOW with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2011 by saynsumthn

UPDATE: Blind Chinese pro-life activist ‘beaten senseless’ over release of secret video: human rights group
by John Jalsevac
Thu Feb 10, 2011 17:31 EST

Chen Guangcheng
February 10, 2011 ( – New information indicates that blind Chinese pro-life activist Chen Guangcheng and his wife were “beaten senseless” by agents of the Chinese government just before the release of a secret video this week, says the human rights organization the Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD).

CHRD says it learned of the beating from an anonymous source. The group says that Chen and his wife were beaten on Tuesday, after officials learned about the video, in which Chen and his wife speak of the ongoing persecution against them by the communist Chinese regime.

The beating was so severe that they are unable to get out of bed, and reportedly will not be permitted to go to the hospital. They have not been allowed to leave their house since Chen was released from prison last September, after serving a four-year sentence.

Chen is China’s foremost opponent of the brutal one-child policy, which involves the routine use of forced abortion and sterilization.
According to another human rights group, ChinaAid, the video, which was shot at Chen’s house and released to the public on Wednesday, was smuggled out of China by a disgruntled government employee.

In it Chen and his wife describe the 24/7 surveillance that their house has been put under, as well as the ongoing intimidation tactics used by government agents.
Being beaten is nothing new for Chen and his wife. When Chen was released from prison in September he was reportedly in extremely poor health, due in large part to the beatings he received in prison.

During Chen’s imprisonment his wife, Yuan Weijing, was also subjected to occasional beatings.

Video of blind activist surfaces in China
By Robert Saiget (AFP) – 9 hours ago
BEIJING — A blind Chinese activist under house arrest since his release from prison in September has appeared in a video accusing the authorities of using “hooligan methods” to silence rights campaigners.

Chen Guangcheng, who gained worldwide fame for exposing abuses in China’s “one-child” population policy, has not been heard from since he was freed five months ago after serving a four-year sentence.

He was jailed in 2006 after accusing family planning officials in the eastern province of Shandong of forcing women to have late-term abortions or be sterilised.
The hour-long video, obtained Wednesday by the US-based rights group China Aid from a person it said was a “reliable government source who is sympathetic to Chen?s cause”, contains Chen’s first public comments since his release.

“The conservative forces of the Communist Party have reached their worst point in openly ignoring the constitution and laws to crack down on villagers and activities aimed at defending rights,” Chen said.

“They are using hooligan methods to provoke and make trouble (for us) — they say we will beat you and beat you and the judicial departments will ignore it,” added Chen, who was wearing dark glasses and a black jacket in the video.

Chen said three teams, each comprising 22 people, monitor his home 24 hours a day, following orders from the Communist Party and the secretive state security ministry. His mobile phone service has been cut off.

“I have come out of a small jail and gone into a bigger jail,” he said.

Police also intimidate Chen’s neighbours, calling him a “traitor” and a “counter-revolutionary,” he said.

“Chen Guangcheng has been released, this is correct, but he can be put back (into prison) at anytime,” Chen quoted police as saying.
“This is one party rule, it is very simple — if we say you are guilty, you are guilty.”

During the video, Chen’s wife and child also call for the end of his house arrest, which they say is illegal.

Some of the footage shows a security agent peering over dried corn stalks into the windows of Chen’s village home as part of their monitoring.

Chen, who is in his late 30s, remains unrepentant, vowing in the video to continue his fight to improve China’s human rights situation.
Local police declined comment when contacted by AFP on Thursday.

Although he has no formal legal qualifications, Chen is what is known in China as a “barefoot” or self-taught lawyer. He has been blind since childhood.
He helped people seek legal redress over a wide variety of injustices, with corrupt officials a particular target.

Chen was convicted of “wilfully harming public property” and “gathering masses to disturb traffic order” — charges that stemmed from a rally by supporters who were angry at police treatment of the activist.

Supporters scuffled with police during the rally outside Chen’s home while he was under house arrest in early 2006. During his house arrest, Chen was allegedly beaten by police.

That same year, Chen was named by Time magazine as one of the world’s 100 most influential people for his courage in exposing the abortion and sterilisation abuses.
He is a past recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay Award, a human rights prize awarded to deserving activists in Asia.

Both the United States and the European Union have repeatedly urged Chinese leaders to end Chen’s house arrest and restore his freedom of movement.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised his case in a speech last month ahead of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s state visit to Washington.
China Aid urged the international community to push Beijing to end Chen’s house arrest and expressed its “grave concern over the escalating tendency of the government to adopt mafia practices”.

“We cannot believe that China is serious about the rule of law when Chen Guangcheng… and other rights advocates are jailed, disappeared, or harassed,” China Aid president Bob Fu said.
The video can be seen at YouTube is officially blocked in China, but many people access the video-sharing site via proxy servers.
On the Net:

• China Aid:

***NOTE: In 1989, Molly Yard , then President of the pro-abortion group The National Organization for Women, praised China’s “One Child Policy” in an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, “among the most intelligent in the world …” ****

21st Century Gendercide !

Posted in Abortion, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 15, 2010 by saynsumthn

Obama Should Tell Wen to Stop the ‘Gendercide’, Advocates Say
By Matthew Robertson
Epoch Times Staff Created Oct 7, 2010

Congressman Chris Smith at the event outside the Capitol Building on Sept. 24. (Lisa Fan/The Epoch Times)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Before Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao leaves the U.S., human rights activists say President Obama should bring up a topic that is as important as it is underreported: the systematic destruction of tens of millions of unborn babies, overwhelmingly female.

It began on Sept. 25, 1980, almost 30 years ago to the day. After two years of policy formulation, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party promulgated its plan to launch a one-size-fits-all approach to reproduction, the coercive family planning scheme known as the one-child policy.

The architects of the policy were actually elite scientists in the military establishment—at that time in China almost all science was military science—who applied theories of cybernetics to disputed sociological theories from the West, redefining China’s population problem along the lines of the hard science of complex machine systems. The result was a radical solution to the perceived “overpopulation” problem, led by one of China’s leading strategic weaponeers, according to the extensive research of Dr. Susan Greenhalgh from the Univeristy of California, Irvine.

The resultant “cruel and inhumane policy” and the brutal way it is implemented are among the worst human rights abuses in the world, according to speakers at an event held on Sept. 24 to commemorate the anniversary of the policy’s initiation. Led by Congressman Chris Smith, supported by Congressman Trent Franks, the speakers gathered near the Capitol Building’s East Front, in the heat, giving their views for close to an hour.

Standing behind the speakers was photographic evidence of the substance of their speeches: dirt villages with red banners strung across telephone poles reading “Crack down with no mercy on unauthorized births, violators who can make an escape for the moment can’t hide forever;” the face of blind activist Chen Guancheng, who was jailed and is now under house arrest for his advocacy on the part of mothers who underwent forced sterilizations; and on the left, the most troubling image, a 23-year-old woman named Li Ping lying on a bed, staring at the remains of her aborted child near her feet.

Reggie Littlejohn, an active opponent of the one child policy and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, explained what happened to Ms. Li. Pregnant without a birth permit, she was pulled off the street by an overzealous “population official,” and her child was forcibly aborted. Because she had no money to pay for the disposal of the baby’s dead body, the doctors dropped it into a bag and placed it on her bed.

Ke Chengping, an invited speaker at the event near the Capitol Building, recounted a similar experience firsthand. When found pregnant the decision to abort was taken immediately, for her, by a population official. She was not allowed to call her husband, nor given an anesthetic when the official performed the procedure. “I will never be able to forget that,” she said at the end of her speech, through quiet tears. After the baby was removed from her uterus, the official inserted a sterilization device. When her husband arrived, they both cried.

One of the well-known former leaders of the Tiananmen Square student movement in 1989, Chai Ling, made a speech representing the NGO she recently founed: All Girls Allowed. She likened the one-child policy to death on the scale of the Tiananmen massacre “happening every hour” in China.

Officials adopt a multi-pronged approach to birth control, including, most commonly, fines for recalcitrants (of up to ten times the monthly income), promotions and bonuses for cadres who strictly follow population policies, regular and intrusive fertility checkups of women, the monitoring of reproductive cycles, birth permits, and a culture of fear. Coercion and violence is used when the usual mechanisms of control break down.

Representative Smith spoke about the head of a population control unit from China’s south. In a reversal of the fairytale trope, she was a mother at night and a “monster” during the day (her words), where “all the power of the state was vested in her and her family planning cadres to bring women to the abortion mills.” Resisters could be arrested and detained, and when a woman went into hiding, her husband and family members would face the same treatment.

As with all repression in communist China, this one comes in waves. Rep. Smith gave a chilling description of such a campaign in Puning county, Guangdong Province, where thousands of people were treated as livestock. Local officials there formed a crack team to round up women, men, and relatives of resisters to the policy, holding them in cramped conditions, then working overtime to sterilize them. Ten thousand people were sterilized within 20 days.

Speakers also outlined the calamitous repercussions of the policy: a ratio of between 120 and 160 males for every 100 females, which will leave millions of Chinese males without a partner; a result of this the vertiginous rise in sex trafficking to China; a rate of female suicide in China that outstrips that of men by three times, meaning that 500 women kill themselves every day partly in response to the one-child-policy; and distorted gender ratios among Chinese communities in the U.S., presumed a result of continued sex-selection practices by families once they arrive here.

Near the tail-end of the event distinguished guest speaker David Aikman former bureau-chief of Time in Beijing, arrived. It is a “terrible policy” that is disastrous for Chinese society, he said; it brings “indescribable suffering” to Chinese women.

It is a “system of repression that has been traumatizing Chinese women for thirty years,” Rep. Smith said. “No other government policy anywhere in the world systematically punishes, abuses, and violates women so grossly as this.”

As a practical measure, Rep. Smith suggests the U.S. stop funding the UN Population Fund, which he says has been the “enabler in chief” of forced abortion and forced sterilization in China. He suggests that Obama bring it up with the Chinese Premier before the latter leaves the United States. Obama met Wen yesterday, but did not touch on the issue.

Kristof’s Error: Population Control is an Easy, but Wrong Solution

Posted in Abortion, Black Women, Brian Clowes, China One Child Policy, Czar, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Holdren, NSSM200, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Commentary by Bryan Clowes, Research Manager, Human Life International
October 1, 2010 ( – Nicholas Kristof’s entire article “Birth Control over Baldness” [New York Times, Sept. 25, 2010] is constructed around a single sentence: “It’s impossible to fight poverty effectively when birthrates are sky high.”

His answer to this problem, of course, is the simplistic, short-sighted and dangerous solution that many others seem to endorse: Put everyone on birth control. He thus falls into the pit occupied by so many others – the fallacy that complex social problems have a “quick fix” that will make everything better, or at least greatly improve the situation.

Let us get one thing straight before proceeding: The goal of the developed nations is not to improve the standard of living of the people in developed nations. If it were, we’d see billions going toward building schools, investing in business, and other proven methods of helping the people of Africa and Asia flourish. The true objective of population control efforts is neatly summed up by the 1974 top-secret U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200, revealingly subtitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” which said that:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. … Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.
We must also be clear about another thing: The ultimate objective of the population controllers is not to ensure the widespread availability of contraception, but the worldwide availability of abortion.

NSSM-200 said that, “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.Shortly after NSSM-200’s release, Malcolm Potts, former Medical Secretary of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the world about population matters, said that “No developed country has brought down its birth rate without a considerable recourse to abortion, and it appears unlikely that developing countries can ever hope to see any decline in their fertility without a massive resort to induced abortion, legal or illegal.”

Today, the most powerful population control groups in the world are quite frank about their desire to legalize abortion worldwide. For example, in its 1996 Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights, the IPPF claimed that “All women have the right to information, education and services necessary for the protection of reproductive health, safe motherhood and safe abortion and, which are accessible, affordable, acceptable and convenient to all users.” The 1994 Program of Action of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) demanded that all nations make abortion available and free to all women by the year 2015.

Perhaps this impending deadline is goading these groups into getting more and more extreme in their rhetoric; in 2008, one United Nations “expert group” ludicrously claimed that “Withholding legal abortion is a form of gender-based discrimination and violence against women.

Trampling the Rights, Laws and Traditions of Developing Nations

In their rush to legalize abortion worldwide, the population controllers have no trouble with trampling on the laws of pro-life nations. In its 1984 document The Human Right to Family Planning, the IPPF baldly stated that “Family Planning Associates and other nongovernmental associations should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for inaction; action outside the law, or even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change.” Other population control groups, including Marie Stopes International and Medecins Sans Frontieres, have admitted to committing illegal abortions in nations with pro-life laws.

When the only objective is to meet population control quotas, human rights are the first thing to go out the window. NSSM-200, which has never been officially repudiated as United States population policy, outlined the possibility of forced population control programs and the withholding of food as coercion:

… mandatory [population control] programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now. … On what basis should such food resources then be provided? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?

Most of us are familiar with the hideous Chinese one-child and forced-abortion program, which “celebrated” its 30th anniversary this week. It is telling indeed that no population control organization has ever condemned or criticized this inhumane program. In fact, many of them have actually praised it. Nafis Sadik, former Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), has said that

China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.

This slavish dedication to suppressing the population has inevitably led to horrible abuses all over the world. Forced abortion and sterilization programs have been exposed in many countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Tibet, Vietnam, and even the United States.

This trend seems to show no signs of slowing down. John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s “Science Czar,” wrote a 1977 book entitled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Development, with Paul and Anne Ehrlich [Paul Ehrlich is the author of the thoroughly debunked but still influential The Population Bomb]. In this book, Holdren and the Ehrlichs said that minority women and other undesirables should be forced to have abortions against their wills; that sterilizing agents should be put in the water supplies of the United States to help hold down the population; and that a “Planetary Police Force” should enforce population control measures.

This callous attitude is reflected in the public statements of countless population controllers around the world. After a number of Bangladeshi women died due to the side effects of injectable “contraceptives,” gynecologist Josas Kon said that “In order to have a good thing there is always a price to pay. If two or three women die — what’s the problem? The population will be reduced.”

This kind of uncaring attitude led Indian citizen Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize for economics, to remark that “Promoting a “family planning first” strategy can send a message to poor people: `Wish you weren’t here’.”

Having traveled to nearly forty poor nations in the Southern Hemisphere, this writer can confirm from personal experience that nothing contributes more to the image of the “Ugly American” than our attempts to compel the citizens of other nations to adopt our values ? particularly in the most sensitive area of deciding how many children they should have.

The Poor of the World Need Plows, Not Pills
What the poor people of the world need is not pills and condoms, but authentic economic development. Studies have demonstrated that, when the standard of living of poor people is raised, they tend to have fewer children. Urbanization, the education of women, increased consumerism, and job opportunities for women outside the home are among the factors that influence people to have smaller families.

But correcting such deficiencies is too difficult and complex for the population controllers. They prefer the simpler and more direct policy of “Find ‘em, bribe ‘em, neuter ‘em and forget ‘em,” which does nothing more than make large poor families into small poor families.

The world’s richest nations, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, have poured more than $75 billion into population control over the past two decades, wreaking havoc in the families and cultures of the developing world. Imagine how many tens of millions of people could have been raised out of poverty to a higher standard of living had all that money been invested in the future of these nations’ future rather than in eliminating their future, their children.

Brian Clowes speaks about NSSM200 in the film on eugenics called- Maafa21 (Clip Below)

Here is a segment with Dr. Clowes in the powerful 2.5 hour film- Maafa21

Social Justice on Immigration? Except for forced abortion victims- Board of Immigration again denies asylum

Posted in Abortion, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, Immigration with tags , , , , , , , on July 20, 2010 by saynsumthn

Judge Orders Immigration Board to Reconsider Asylum for Chinese Forced-Abortion Opponent

By James Tillman
July 19, 2010 ( – The Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals has ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to review Qiu Ping Li’s request for asylum in the United States because of her resistance to China’s one-child policy – and subsequent punishment by Chinese authorities.

In denying her asylum, Judge Richard Posner said, the Board of Immigration “overlooked the critical facts, and then it unconvincingly denied having overlooked them.”

When she lived in China, Qiu Ping Li had opposed the one-child policy, as did her mother, who had been forcibly sterilized. So when she was told to report for her mandatory pregnancy test at the age of 18, she ignored the notice.

Qiu Ping Li says that five family-planning officers came to her house to find out why she had not arrived: she told them she opposed the one-child policy. They responded by forcibly removing her to the family-planning office, yanking down her pants, and trying to force her to urinate so they could perform a pregnancy test.

The following year Qiu Ping Li was staying with a cousin who was pregnant with a second child. The cousin received a notice telling her to appear at the family-planning office for an examination, but ignored the notice because she did not want to be forced to have an abortion.

When family planning officers came to her house to force her to come to the examination, Qiu Ping Li blocked the entrance while her cousin fled through the bathroom window.

For this, officers kept Qiu Ping Li in a bedless jail cell for three days and served her one meal of porridge a day, which gave her gastritis. Her mother paid 5,000 yuan – about a third of a year’s salary – to bail her out of jail. At that point her family decided it would be best for her to flee to the United States, where she asked for asylum.

The Board of Immigration, however, said she had failed to demonstrate that she was “targeted for harm because she acted in a manner that would constitute ‘resistance’ or opposition to a coercive family control program.”

The judicial review of the Board’s decision, however, says that her “detention, the unhealthy conditions of the detention, and the fine … amounted not just to targeting her for harm, but to hitting the target.”

“Experiences like [Qiu Ping Li’s] are definitely not uncommon,” Colin Mason, of the Population Research Institute (PRI), told (LSN). PRI has conducted several on-the-ground investigations into the situation of forced abortions in China, one of which led the Bush administration to withdraw funding from United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) after PRI discovered that the UN agency was complicit in China’s coercive program.
“Normally,” explained Mason, “the punishment for illegal children is crippling fines and denial of government benefits, which is obviously bad enough. However, if officials feel that an area is becoming too lax, they crack down on the area to show that they ‘mean business.'”

“Either way, forcible measures like the ones described are exceptions to the rule these days, but common enough exceptions.”
Beneath the Obama Administration the United States has begun to again contribute money to UNFPA.

Mason told LSN that the UNFPA “makes the absurd claim that reproductive coercion has been relaxed or even abandoned in these counties.”
“On-the-ground visits, conducted by Steven Mosher and myself, show that this is clearly false.”

“That being the case, we hold that the UNFPA is either grossly incompetent and does not understand what is going on in the counties in which it operates, or it is lying, and thus is complicit in the goings-on of the one-child policy. Either way, they don’t deserve our funding.”

READ: On Immigration: Keep families together, except those involved with victims of forced abortion ?

On Immigration: Keep families together, except those involved with victims of forced abortion ?

Posted in China One Child Policy, forced abortion, Immigration with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2010 by saynsumthn

Funny how all the talk around immigration advocates wish to keep families together. If this is truly the position of the Obama Immigration Police- than how come they denied this man his petition? Read Below

Circuit Gives Chinese Minor Shot at Asylum

(CN) – An underage Chinese national will get a shot at asylum after he was forced to flee after he and his girlfriend violated China’s population control policy by living together and trying to marry, the 9th Circuit ruled.

The girlfriend, also underage, was forced by Chinese officials to have an abortion, which constitutes persecution, the panel ruled.

Nai Yuan Jiang successfully demonstrated that he suffered persecution at the hands of Chinese officials who forced his girlfriend to have an abortion after it was discovered that the two were living together and planning on marrying, even after they had been denied a marriage license because they are minors.

In his hearing before the immigration judge, Jiang claimed that he and his girlfriend Sui-Jhou had been expelled from school for holding hands, a violation of prohibitions against romantic relationships. After being expelled the couple began living together and decided to get married with or without the government’s permission.

When authorities found out they were living together, Jiang says he was put in jail and fined, and that his girlfriend was forced to have an examination which led to a forced abortion.

The couple say they later tried to hold a marriage ceremony but police raided it and beat up guests, breaking one guest’s leg and forcing the rest to run. Jiang fled to the United States and his girlfriend went into hiding in China.

The immigration judge denied Jiang’s petition for asylum after determining that he had failed to show that because he had resisted his nation’s coercive population control program he became the subject of abuse by the government.

On appeal, the three-judge panel disagreed and ruled that even though the Chinese government refused to recognize Jiang’s marriage, the marriage was valid and Jiang was the victim of persecution.

The law “does not prevent the spouse of a person who has physically undergone a forced abortion or sterilization procedure from qualifying for political asylum,” Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote for the Pasadena, Calif.-based panel.

In the scope of U.S. law, “a spouse includes an individual whose marriage would be recognized but for the enforcement of China’s coercive population control policy, as well as an individual whose marriage is officially recognized by Chinese authorities,” Wardlaw wrote.



NAI YUAN JIANG, Petitioner,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73186.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 8, 2009—Pasadena, California.

Filed May 24, 2010.

Helen A. Sklar, Stone & Grzegorek LLP, Los Angeles, California, and Alphan K. Tsoi, Tsoi & Associates, Monterey Park, California, for the petitioner.

Jessica Segall, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia, for the respondent.

Before: Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw.

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge.

Nai Yuan Jiang (“Jiang”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We must decide whether the BIA’s conclusion that Jiang has not demonstrated persecution for “other resistance to a coercive population control program” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), is supported by substantial evidence. Because the BIA expressly found Jiang credible, we consider whether the BIA correctly applied the law to the record before it, including Jiang’s credible testimony. Because we conclude that Jiang suffered persecution for demonstrating other resistance to China’s coercive population control policy, we grant the petition in part and remand to the BIA.

Jiang entered the United States on May 5, 1999, and was immediately detained. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) filed a Notice to Appear on May 18, 1999, charging him with removability for violating INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Jiang timely filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In his application, Jiang claimed past persecution and fear of future persecution under China’s coercive family planning policies and on the basis of his religion.[ 1 ]

In a hearing before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Jiang testified that he met his girlfriend, Siu-Jhou Jiang (“Siu-Jhou”), in high school, and that they were both expelled after they were caught holding hands, a violation of prohibitions against romantic relationships. Undeterred, they began living together in the same household in July 1998, and they began to share a room on September 5, 1998. On November 16, 1998, they decided to marry and applied for an official marriage license. Because they were both under the legal age of marriage imposed as part of China’s population control policy, local authorities denied their application for the marriage license and asked the couple if they were cohabiting. Jiang admitted that they were. Later that day, two police officers arrived at their home and seized both Jiang and Siu-Jhou. Local officials detained Jiang and subjected Siu-Jhou to a physical examination, under her protest. During the physical examination, it was discovered that she was two months pregnant. The local officials forcibly subjected Siu-Jhou to an abortion that day. Meanwhile, local authorities held Jiang in custody. They released him the next day upon payment of a 5,000 RMB fine after the abortion had been completed.

Despite the minimum age requirement for a staterecognized marriage, Jiang and Siu-Jhou decided to be married in a traditional Chinese ceremony to be held on Christmas Day, December 25, 1998. On the morning of their traditional ceremony, police and local officials from the family planning division interrupted the wedding preparations and attempted to arrest Jiang. Fearing that the police and family planning officials would detain, beat, and fine him, Jiang escaped with the help of his friend. Siu-Jhou, who had not yet arrived at the ceremony, also went into hiding.

Jiang also credibly testified that, after the raid on his traditional wedding ceremony, he retreated to Ginshi Village to stay with his friend. During this stay, Jiang attended a worship session, where he helped to prepare fliers about Christianity for public distribution. Police officers armed with batons disbanded the meeting, beating the participants. Police hit Jiang before he escaped across a nearby river; other participants were also severely beaten, including one who suffered a broken leg. After the incident, police arrested and interrogated Jiang’s parents about his whereabouts and detained and beat his father.

Jiang conceded removability, and on January 21, 2003, the IJ denied his petition for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. Following Jiang’s timely appeal, the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision on April 20, 2004. The BIA found that Jiang failed to meet the burden of proof required to show persecution under Matter of C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997), which had established that the spouse of an individual forced to undergo an abortion is prima facie eligible for asylum. Because “the respondent and his girlfriend were underage, and therefore did not have a legally recognized marriage in China,” the BIA denied Jiang’s claim. The BIA also found that Jiang had not been persecuted in the past on the basis of his Christian religion and that Jiang had not proven likelihood of future persecution on these grounds.

Jiang then timely appealed to this court. Upon the government’s motion, we referred the case to mediation and thereafter granted the government’s unopposed motion to remand to the BIA for reconsideration. On December 27, 2006, the BIA found Jiang credible, but again denied Jiang’s appeal. Citing its recent decision in Matter of S-L-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2006), the BIA held that Jiang did not suffer past persecution because he was not a legal spouse of the victim of a forced abortion, and found that he did not demonstrate “other resistance” to a coercive population program. The BIA also rejected Jiang’s religious persecution claim.

Jiang subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that in S-L-L-, the BIA recognized that its ruling “does not mean that an unmarried applicant may never demonstrate past persecution in the context of a partner’s forced abortion or sterilization.” S-L-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 10. The BIA denied his motion.

Jiang again timely appealed. In October 2007, the government again requested that we remand to the BIA for reconsideration, this time because of our decisions in Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2004), and Tang v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2007). In Ma, we held that an individual whose spouse was persecuted under China’s population control policies, and who was married in a traditional, but not a staterecognized wedding, is eligible for asylum. In Tang, we held that two people living together as “husband and wife” should be treated as spouses for purposes of asylum claims based on population control policies. We again granted the government’s motion to remand to the BIA.

On June 24, 2008, the BIA denied Jiang’s claim for the third time, again based upon an intervening change in the law. The BIA observed that, subsequent to our remand, the Attorney General had determined that “an alien is not per se entitled to refugee status solely upon the fact that his spouse was forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.” Pursuant to Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520 (A.G. 2008), the BIA concluded that Jiang was not entitled to rely upon evidence of Siu-Jhou’s forced abortion, failed to demonstrate any resistance to family planning policies, and failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution due to such resistance. Jiang timely filed this third appeal.

We have jurisdiction over a final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Where, as here, the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our “review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006). We review questions of law de novo. Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We review findings of fact for substantial evidence. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009).
A. Agency Deference

In denying Jiang’s claim, the BIA determined that a spouse or unmarried partner of a victim of forced abortion is not presumptively eligible for refugee status under J-S-. The BIA further concluded that Jiang had not demonstrated persecution for “`other resistance’ to a coercive population control program” as required by J-S- for refugee status under INA § 101(a)(42). J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 537-38.

[1] In J-S-, the Attorney General concluded that INA § 101(a)(42) cannot be read to confer “automatic or presumptive refugee status on the spouses of persons who have been physically subjected to a forced abortion or sterilization procedure pursuant to a foreign government’s coercive population program.” Id. at 521. The Attorney General in J-S- thus overruled the BIA’s earlier decisions in C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997), which held that the spouse of an individual forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization is prima facie eligible for asylum, and Matter of S-L-L-, 4 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2006), which limited C-Y-Z- to hold that only officially recognized spouses of victims of forced abortion or sterilization benefitted from a per se finding of past persecution. J-S-, I. & N. Dec. at 521.

[2] We must first decide whether the Attorney General’s most recent interpretation of INA § 101(a)(42) in J-S- is legally controlling. When reviewing decisions by an administrative agency, we apply Chevron deference. Under Chevron, we first ask whether the “statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,” and if so, we then ask whether the agency’s interpretation “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984).

The Attorney General’s conclusion in J-S- is contrary to our precedent in He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2003), in which we agreed with the BIA’s prior decision in C-Y-Z-. In He, we affirmed the BIA’s conclusion that spouses of victims of coercive population control policies are presumptively eligible for asylum under INA § 101(a)(42). However, in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (“Brand X”), the Supreme Court held that “a court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion.” Id. at 982. The government argues that, under Brand X, we must defer to the agency’s reinterpretation of INA § 101(a)(42) in J-S-. We agree.

First, we conclude that the Attorney General’s interpretation of INA § 101(a)(42) is entitled to Chevron deference. INA § 101(a)(42) is silent as to the provision of refugee status to spouses of victims of coercive population control policies:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) . . . . For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, reversal, or resistance shall by deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

INA § 101(a)(42).

[3] No language in the statute explicitly denies asylum relief to spouses of victims of coercive population control policies or precludes the Attorney General from construing that statute in a manner that affords them such relief. Moreover, as the agency’s new interpretation of the statute in J-S- indicates, the statutory language of INA § 101(a)(42) is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Although the Attorney General in J-S- noted that INA § 101(a)(42) “does not explicitly exclude spouses from its purview,” J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 530, his decision in J-S- reverses the BIA’s earlier conclusion in C-Y-Z-, which held that the spouse of a victim of coercive population control policies is prima facie eligible for asylum under INA § 101(a)(42). C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997). We conclude that INA § 101(a)(42) is silent and ambiguous as to the refugee status of spouses of victims of coercive population control policies.

[4] Proceeding to the second step in the Chevron analysis, we would typically decide whether the agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute. In this case, however, we defer to the agency’s new interpretation of INA § 101(a)(42), pursuant to Brand X. Under Brand X, “[o]nly a judicial precedent holding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the agency’s interpretation, and therefore contains no gap for the agency to fill, displaces a conflicting agency construction.” Brand X, 545 U.S. at 982-83. We have clarified that, under Brand X, “[w]hile agencies retain discretion to fill ambiguous statutory gaps, it does not follow that an agency may repeatedly put forward an interpretation that we have already examined under Chevron and found unreasonable at its second step.” Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466, 478 (9th Cir. 2009). Here we have had no occasion to hold unreasonable the agency’s current view as to the presumptive eligibility of a victim’s spouse.

[5] In He, we agreed with the BIA’s prior decision in C-Y-Z- that spouses of victims of coercive population control policies are presumptively eligible for asylum under INA § 101(a)(42). However, our decision in He affirmed the BIA’s prior position in C-Y-Z- without analyzing “whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute” under the second prong of the Chevron test. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. Because our prior decision failed to foreclose the agency’s current interpretation, we must defer to it. We note that our deference to the Attorney General’s new interpretation in J-S- is in accord with every other circuit to have addressed this issue. See Dong v. Holder, 587 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (finding that J-S- overruled C-Y-Z- and S-L-L-); Chen v. Holder, No. 08-5656-ag, 348 Fed. Appx. 622 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2009) (same); Wu v. Holder, No. 08-9558, 343 Fed. Appx. 309 (10th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009) (same); Jin v. Holder, 572 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2009) (same); Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2009) (same); Yu v. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2009) (same); Lin-Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (same).
B. Merits of Jiang’s Political Opinion Claim

Having concluded that the Attorney General’s interpretation of INA § 101(a)(42) in J-S- controls, we next examine whether the BIA committed legal error in concluding that Jiang failed to demonstrate “other resistance to a coercive population control program” under the statute, and whether the BIA’s conclusion that Jiang did not suffer persecution on the basis of that resistance is supported by substantial evidence.
1. Persecution Due to “Other Resistance to a Coercive Population Control Program”

[6] In J-S-, the BIA concluded that spouses cannot rely upon “the sole fact of their spouse’s persecution automatically to qualify for political asylum under the statute’s coercive population control `resistance’ provisions.” J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 534-35. The Attorney General’s interpretation, however, “does not prevent the spouse of a person who has physically undergone a forced abortion or sterilization procedure from qualifying for political asylum.” Id. at 523. Such a person may qualify for asylum under INA § 101(a)(42) if he or she can demonstrate that

(i) he or she qualifies as a refugee . . . on account of persecution for “failure or refusal” to undergo such a procedure or for “other resistance” to a coercive population control program; (ii) he or she has a well-founded fear of being forced to undergo an abortion or involuntary sterilization procedure or of being persecuted for failing or refusing to undergo such a procedure or for “other resistance” to a coercive population control program; (iii) the specific facts of his or her case justify asylum on grounds other than those articulated in section 601(a); or (iv) he or she satisfies the requirements for derivative asylum expressly set forth in section 208(b)(3)(A) of the Act.

J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 537-38.

[7] J-S- thus stands only for the limited proposition that INA § 101(a)(42) cannot be read to confer “automatic or presumptive refugee status on the spouses of persons who have physically been subjected to a forced abortion or sterilization procedure pursuant to a foreign government’s coercive population program.” J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 521 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Attorney General concluded in J-S- that applicants may “present proof, of which their spouse’s treatment may be a part, of persecution for refusing to undergo forced abortion or sterilization procedures or for engaging in `other resistance’ to a coercive population control program.” J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 535 (emphasis added). We thus consider a spouse’s forced abortion or sterilization as “proof” that an applicant resisted a coercive population control policy, and in analyzing whether persecution occurred as a result. Id. However, an applicant must provide evidence of resistance in addition to the spouse’s forced abortion or sterilization to avoid what the Attorney General described as the “fatal flaw” in the per se eligibility analysis: “Some spouses may not have `resisted,’ and in fact may have affirmatively supported, the forced abortion or sterilization procedure that was performed on the spouse who remains in China. Such applicants should not . . . [be permitted to] use the sole fact of their spouse’s persecution automatically to qualify for political asylum under the statute’s coercive population control `resistance’ provisions.” Id. at 534-35.
a. Other Resistance to a Coercive Population Control Program

Jiang’s credible testimony amply demonstrates the “other resistance to a coercive population control program” required by J-S-. The BIA erred as a matter of law in concluding otherwise.

[8] First, Siu-Jhou’s forced abortion is proof of Jiang’s resistance to China’s population control policy. J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 535. Jiang neither supported nor acquiesced in the forced abortion. Family planning officials arrested both Jiang and Siu-Jhou for cohabiting in violation of China’s prohibition against underage marriage, after they had applied for a marriage license. Family planning officials then subjected Siu-Jhou to a medical examination against her will, during which they discovered that Jiang and Siu-Jhou had conceived in defiance of the population control policy, and that Siu-Jhou was two months pregnant. Officials held Jiang in detention while they subjected Siu-Jhou to an abortion. They released him the next day, after the abortion had been completed, and only after he paid a heavy fine.

[9] Moreover, the forced abortion took place as part of a series of events that reflect Jiang’s persistent defiance of the coercive population control policy. Jiang and Siu-Jhou cohabited without having been able to marry under Chinese law, and attempted to apply for an official marriage license, which was denied them due to their underage status. Even after the forced abortion and fine resulting from their previous violation of the population control law, Jiang and Siu-Jhou were determined to marry in a traditional Chinese ceremony despite the government’s denial of an official marriage license. Their continued resistance of the official policy prohibiting their marriage was again met with violence by the local police. At seven o’clock on the morning of the wedding, as Jiang’s relatives were helping to decorate for the ceremony, and as Jiang was straightening out his wedding clothes, ten police officers and family planning officials arrived to arrest Jiang. Jiang was forced to flee from his home, and his bride was also forced into hiding.

We have established that China’s prohibition on underage marriage “is an integral part” of China’s coercive population control policy. Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153,1159 n.5; see also Ma, 361 F.3d at 554 (concluding same). In Li, we addressed for the first time the meaning of the phrase “other resistance to a coercive population control program.” Id. at 1157. There, we held that a petitioner “may also be able to demonstrate resistance to a coercive population control policy” by deciding to marry, even when denied a license by local authorities. Id. at 1161.

[10] Jiang’s acts in defiance of the coercive population control policy fit squarely within our precedent as to the meaning of “other resistance.” Pursuant to J-S- and Li, it is clear that Siu-Jhou’s forced abortion, in which Jiang was not a willing participant, and Jiang’s continued attempts to cohabit and marry in contravention of China’s population control policy, in the face of denial of an official marriage license, constitute “other resistance.”
b. Persecution

[11] To establish past persecution, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) an incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution; (2) persecution on account of one or more of the statutorily-protected grounds; and (3) that the persecution was committed either by the government or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control. Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000). Because Jiang’s claim falls under persecution on the basis of political opinion, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), and because Jiang’s claim of persecution is based on actions by local police and family planning officials’ enforcement of China’s official population control policy, which he resisted, we address only the question of whether Jiang’s experiences rise to the level of persecution. We conclude they do.

The BIA concluded that Jiang has not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his resistance to a coercive population control policy. The BIA was correct in concluding that pursuant to J-S-, Jiang cannot qualify for refugee status solely on the basis of Siu-Jhou’s forced abortion. J-S- makes clear, however, that the forced abortion or sterilization imposed on one’s spouse is proof of the fact that the petitioner was persecuted. J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 535. However, Jiang offered substantial evidence of additional persecution in support of his claim.

[12] We examine “the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether a finding of persecution is compelled.” Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The key question is whether, looking at the cumulative effect of all the incidents a petitioner has suffered, the treatment [he or] she received rises to the level of persecution.”). Here, an examination of the totality of the circumstances compels a finding that Jiang was persecuted as a result of his resistance to China’s coercive population control policy. Jiang was first expelled from school due to his romantic relationship with Siu-Jhou, which was legally prohibited. After attempting to obtain a marriage license from the government, local authorities detained him for over a day. Family planning authorities required him to pay a heavy fine in order to be released from detention.[ 2 ] When Jiang resisted China’s official population control policy of prohibiting underage marriage by organizing and participating in a traditional wedding ceremony, local officials and police officers arrived at his home and attempted to arrest him on the morning of the wedding. Jiang was then forced to flee his hometown and hide from authorities out of concern for his safety. See Guo, 361 F.3d 1194 (finding persecution under the totality of circumstances where the Chinese government detained applicant for a day and a half and coerced him into signing a document that he would no longer believe in Christianity).

[13] The BIA also erred in denying Jiang’s petition because he was not a legal spouse of the victim of a forced abortion. In its decision, the BIA failed to account for our precedent establishing that China’s bar on underage marriage is an integral part of its coercive population control program. Ma, 361 F.3d at 553; Li, 356 F.3d at 1159. Under this holding, whether a persecuting country would recognize a marriage is not the dispositive question in determining whether the petitioner is a “spouse,” particularly where the marriage is barred by a coercive population control program. In Ma, we held that “because the prohibition on underage marriage is an integral part of [China’s population control] policy, it would contravene the fundamental statute to deny asylum on the basis of that rule.” Ma, 361 F.3d at 561. Thus “for couples who do not meet the age requirements to marry under population control policies, the failure to have an official marriage ceremony does not preclude male partners of women who have had forced abortions from obtaining asylum under § 1101(a)(42)(B). Tang, 489 F.3d at 990. The Chinese government, moreover, recognizes “a wedding ceremony according to the rural customs” as a “de facto” marriage where both spouses have reached the legal age to marry. Ma, 361 F.3d at 557. We have therefore concluded that “the protections of section 101(a)(42)(B) apply to husbands whose marriages would be legally recognized, but for China’s coercive family planning policies, and not only to husbands whose marriages are recognized by Chinese authorities.” Id. at 561.

[14] Here, it is clear that Jiang is not precluded from the protections of INA § 101(a)(42)(B). Even after cohabiting, conceiving, and being denied an official marriage license on account of their age, as well as enduring a forced abortion, Jiang and Siu-Jhou expressed their clear intent and actions toward achieving a traditional marriage union. However, local police officers and family planning officials forcibly prevented Jiang and Siu-Jhou from concluding their traditional marriage ceremony as part of its enforcement of China’s population control policy. Because Jiang and Siu-Jhou would have been married in accordance with their village’s tradition but for this interference by local officials, and would have been married had the state not denied them a marriage license, we thus conclude that Jiang is not precluded from the protections of INA § 101(a)(42)(B), and that he may present proof of Siu-Jhou’s forced abortion as a factor in establishing persecution, see J-S-, 24 I.& N. Dec. at 535, along with all the other acts of persecution that he suffered at the hands of Chinese officials.

[15] Accordingly, we find that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), that Jiang has established past persecution on the basis of “other resistance” to China’s coercive population control policy.
C. Religious Persecution Claim

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach Jiang’s religious persecution claim. We nevertheless disagree with the government’s assertion that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. The government contends that Jiang failed to file a petition for review of the BIA’s December 27, 2006, denial of relief, in which the BIA considered his religious persecution claim. The record belies this assertion. Jiang timely filed a motion for reconsideration of the BIA’s December 27, 2006 decision on January 10, 2007, in which he preserved his claim of religious persecution. The motion was filed within the 30-day period required by statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). After Jiang timely filed his appeal, the government requested that we remand his petition to the BIA for further reconsideration “in light of the circumstances of this case.” We remanded the petition in full to the BIA, which then neglected to address Jiang’s religious persecution claim. Jiang properly briefed the issue before our court on this appeal. Thus, we have jurisdiction over his religious persecution claim. We do not, however, determine whether the BIA erred in finding that Jiang failed to establish persecution on the basis of his religious practice for purposes of his asylum, withholding, and CAT petition.

[16] We defer to the Attorney General’s interpretation of INA § 101(a)(42)(B) in J-S-. Under J-S-, a spouse of an individual who has undergone forcible abortion or sterilization may present proof of such treatment to evidence persecution. We reaffirm that, for the purposes of INA § 101(a)(42), a spouse includes an individual whose marriage would be recognized but for the enforcement of China’s coercive population control policy, as well as an individual whose marriage is officially recognized by Chinese authorities. Because any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Jiang established past persecution for “other resistance” to the population control policy, we conclude that Jiang is entitled to the protections of INA § 101(a)(42)(B). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA, which shall, on behalf of the Attorney General, exercise discretion regarding whether to grant asylum. See Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004); Li, 356 F.3d at 1160. We remand for further proceedings on whether Jiang is eligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief.


READ: Social Justice on Immigration? Except for forced abortion victims- Board of Immigration again denies asylum