Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03356/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03356-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Meidi Cao
Petitioner
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 

No. 05-3356

___________

Meidi Cao, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals

Alberto Gonzales, United States * 

Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2007

Filed: February 23, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Meidi Cao, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of petitioner’s

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention

Against Torture, and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction arises under 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(1) (2000). The petition for review was timely filed and venue properly lies

in our court.

Petitioner, who was born on May 17, 1968, in Fujian Province, is a citizen of

China. Using a false Korean passport, he illegally entered the United States on or

Appellate Case: 05-3356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281475
-2-

about March 28, 2001. Upon being charged by the former Immigration and

Naturalization Service as removable under section 212(a)(6)(A)(I) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (INA), petitioner admitted the factual allegation contained in the

Notice to Appear and conceded removability.

Petitioner based his claim for relief upon his allegation that subsequent to her

1991 marriage to petitioner, petitioner’s wife was twice forced to undergo abortions,

the first in 1997 and the second in 2000. Petitioner submitted by way of corroboration

Chinese abortion certificates from the local family planning office. The IJ questioned

the authenticity of these certificates, noting that the 1998 State Department Profile of

Asylum Claims and Country Conditions regarding China states that United States

Embassy and Consulates General are unaware of any so-called “abortion certificates”

and that the only official document that might resemble an abortion certificate is one

issued by a hospital at the patient’s request following a voluntary abortion. The

Profile notes that asylum documentation, especially from Fujian Province, is subject

to widespread fabrication and fraud.

Following a continuance in the proceedings, petitioner submitted hospital

documents mailed to him by his wife stating that the abortions were performed at the

hospitals and not at the family planning office. The IJ questioned the validity of these

documents, finding that petitioner had not satisfactorily explained why he had

submitted the original certificates or why the second certificates were more reliable

than the first.

The IJ also questioned petitioner’s testimony and evidence relating to his claim

that his wife had become pregnant following her 1995 sterilization. The IJ found that

petitioner had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that he faces a reasonable

possibility of persecution simply because he and his wife have two children, given the

fact that the Country Reports on China show a change in policy and conditions in that

country. The IJ found that the fact that petitioner’s wife may have undergone

Appellate Case: 05-3356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281475
-3-

voluntary abortions did not establish a claim for asylum based upon coercive family

planning policies in China.

 Finding that the petitioner had failed to establish a claim for asylum, the IJ

concluded that petitioner perforce failed to satisfy the higher standard of proof

necessary to establish a claim for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of

the INA. The IJ also denied petitioner’s request for voluntary departure and ordered

him removed to China.

 Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s

decision as that of the BIA. Prokopenko v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 941, 944 (8th Cir.

2004). We review the BIA’s denial of an application of asylum under the deferential

substantial evidence standard of review. I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481

(1992), and we may reverse only if the evidence not only supports but compels the

conclusion that the petitioner advocates. Id. at n.1. As provided by the INA,

“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

We conclude that the IJ’s findings and credibility determinations find support

in the record and thus should be affirmed. Without recounting that evidence in greater

detail than that set forth above, suffice it to say that it lacks credence, as illustrated

by petitioner’s presentation of highly questionable documents and his credulitystraining testimony regarding his wife’s post-sterilization pregnancy and his alleged

seven-day detention pending his wife’s surrender for an involuntary abortion. Small

wonder, then, that the IJ summarized his reaction to petitioner’s testimony by saying,

“This Court does not believe that [petitioner] has testified candidly or truthfully

concerning the incidents that allegedly occurred in China.”

We agree with the government that because petitioner did not file an appeal

with the BIA from the IJ’s adverse decisions on his withholding and Convention

Appellate Case: 05-3356 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281475
-4-

Against Torture claims, he has failed to exhaust his remedies on those claims and may

not raise them by way of petition for review. See, e.g., Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d

954, 957 (8th Cir. 2004).

The petition is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3356 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281475