2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-29-2008 

# Ni v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1107

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ni v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 473. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/473T h e H o n o rab le A . W all ac e T ash im a, S en ior C ir cu itJu d g e o f th e U n it ed S tat es C o u rt * of A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 1107

_____________ Y A N Y IN G N I, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew o f

a n O rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 77- 282- 988 Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 28, 2008 Be f o r e : M c KE E , RE NDE L L , a n d T AS HI M A, C i r cui tJudges * ( Fi l ed: Sept ember29, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTW er e i tnece s s aryt o r evi ew t he cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, w e w oul d have c oncerns 1 aboutt he I J ’ s r el i ance on di s cr epanc i es betw een he rai rpor ti nt ervi ew , hercr edi bl e fe ar i nt ervi ew s , hers uppor t i ng aff i davi tand herhear i ng t es t i m ony . Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thaton a t lea st o n e o c c a sio n th e in terp re ter sp o k e M a n d a rin C h in e se . S h e e x p lain e d th a t, al t hough s he under s t ands M andar i n, s he does nots peak i tw el l . Som e of the di s cr epanc i es t he I J r el i ed upon i n r ej ect i ng hert es t i m onym ayw el l have r es ul t ed fr om pr obl ems w i t h t he tr ans l at i on, and w e ar e notatal l s at i s fi ed thatt he I J cons i der ed that p o s s ib ility b e f

o re re lyin g u p o n a p p a re n t in c o n s is te n c ie s to re je c t P e titio n e r’ s te s tim o n y . 2 M c K e e , C i r cui tJudge . Pet i t i onerY an Y i ng N i s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff

i r m i ng t he dec i s i on of an I m m i gr at i on J udge deny i ng herappl i cat i on for a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I n a s mu c h a s we wr i t e p r i ma r i l yf o rt h e p a rt i e s wh o a r e f

a mi l i a rwi t h t h i s c a s e , we n e e d n o t s ta te th e p ro c e d u ra l o r f a c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d . Pet i t i onerar gues t hatt he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng w as nots uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . S e e G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “[A ] dver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ar e r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H ow ever , w e nee d notr es ol ve herchal l enge t o t he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yrul i ng b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e h o l d i n g o f t h e I J a n d t h e B o a r d . A c c o r d i n g l y, e v e n i f we a c c e p ta l l o f

P e t i t i o n e r ’ s t e s t i mo n y , s h e wo u l d s t i l l n o tq u a l i f yf o ra s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l , o rwi t h h o l d i n g u n d e rt h e CA T. 13

T he A t t or neyG ener al m aygr antas y l um t o al i ens w ho ar e “r efuge es ” w i t hi n t he m e a n in g o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ). See 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 ). G e n e ra lly , a re f u g e e is s om eone w ho demonstr at es an i nabi l i t yorunw i l l i ngnes s t o r etur n t o t hei rpr i orcountr yof r es i dence “bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on” on ac countof one of f i ve pr ot ect ed gr ounds : r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ar s oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . Pas tper s ecut i on r equi r es pr oof of “ ( 1) one orm or e i nci dent s r i s i ng t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) t hati s ‘ on acc ountof’ one of the s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds ; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed ei t herbyt he governm entorbyfor ces t hatt he governm enti s ei t herunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ” Mu la n g a v . A sh c ro

ft , 349 F. 3d 123, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e have expl ai ned that “per s ecut i on i s an extr eme conceptt hatdoes noti ncl ude eve r ys or tof tr eatm entour s oci etyr egar ds as offe ns i ve. ” Fa t i n v . I NS , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). It encompas s es onl ygr ave ha r m s s uch as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and economi c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thatt heycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” I d. at 1 2 4 0 . A sh o w in g o f

p a st p e rse c u tio n g iv e s ris e to a re b u ttab le p re su m p tio n o f a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 1 )( i) . Pet i t i oner ’ s pas tper s ecut i on cl ai m cent er s on an i nci denti nvol vi ng t hugs w ho br oke i nt o t he home w her e s he l i ved w i t h herpar ent s . A cce pt i ng hert es t i m onyt hatt he t hugs ki cked a nd beather , t her e i s not hi ng t o s ugges tt hati tw as on acc ountof any s t atut or ygr ound t hatcoul d es t abl i s h s he i s a r efuge e. R ather , s he conc edes t hatt he4

i nci dentw as r et al i at i on agai ns therfatherbyhi s bos s beca us e he t ol d t he t ow n author i t i es t hathi s bos s w as corrupt . Pet i t i onerher s el f w as neverarr es t ed orm i s t r eat ed forher r el i gi ous bel i efs , and s he has notes t abl i s hed a w el l - founded f eart hats uch per s ecut i on w oul d occuri f s he r etur ns t o C hi na. Pet i t i onercoul d t heor et i cal l yhave a cl ai m for as y l um ar i s i ng fr om t he fa ctt hatherpar ent s have be en det ai ned fort w enty - fourhour s for p ro m o tin g C h ri s tia n ity. See Si ngh v. G onz al es , 4 0 6 F . 3 d 1 9 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, th is re c o rd d o e s n o t su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t h e r p a re n t’s re lig io u s b e lief s w e re im p u ted to herort hatt he abus e herpar ent s had t o s uffe rr os e t o t he l evel r equi r ed fora fi ndi ng of p e rs e c u tio n . S e e Fa tin , supra . M or eover , even i f w e ac cepthert es t i m onyaboutw hat happene d t o herpar ent s as evi dence of a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on bas ed upon the pos s i bi l i t yt hatt hei rr el i gi ous bel i efs w oul d be i m put ed t o her , Pet i t i onerhas not e s ta b lis h e d th a t it w o u ld b e im p ra c tic a l to re tu rn to a n o th e r s e c tio n o f h e r c o u n tr y . See L e ia v . A sh c ro

ft , 393 F. 3d 427, 437 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A ccor di ngl y , s he has notes t abl i s hed a c laim f o r a sy lu m o r w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. T he governm entar gues t hatPet i t i oner ’ s C A T cl ai m i s w ai ved bec aus e i tw as not appea l ed t o t he B I A . H erbr i ef t o t he B oar d does s t at e thats he i s appea l i ng t he deni al of “asy l um , res t ri ct i on of rem ov al and rel i ef un der the U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainst T o rtu re .” A .R . 8 . T h e b o d yo f th e b rie f , h o w e v e r, ad d re ss e s o n lyth e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty f in d in g a n d th e “ w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r” sta n d a rd f

o r a sy lu m . M o re o v e r, th e iss u e isirre lev a n t as th e re c o rd f a lls w o e f u llysh o rt o f

e sta b lish in g th a t sh e h a s b e e n to rtu re d in t he pas tori s l i kel yt o be t or tur ed i f s he r etur ns t o C hi na. A c c o rd in g ly, th is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .

5