subjected to the procedures could claim asylum relief, immigration judges and the BIA would never have needed to consider whether an applicant’s harm rises to the level of persecution, given that the amendment explicitly provides that a forced abortion or sterilization does rise to this level. 12 . The majority’s assertion that § 601 "relieve[s] ... persons who actually experienced a forcible abortion or sterilization from the burden of proving a political nexus” is similarly problematic. Maj. Op. at 308-09. In my view, Congress did not relieve anyone of the burden of proving political nexus. Rather, it determined that an applicant can meet this burden by establishing proof of persecution pursuant to a coercive family planning policy. Given the majorit ai Luan Chen, 381 F.3d at 231 (<HOLDING>). 14 . Because petitioner Dong was not married
holding that the bia rule is unreasonable in this context holding that the bia rule is reasonable holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred