2010 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 7-2-2010 

# H ong Huang 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 . 09-3747

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " H on g Huan g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1031. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1031NOT 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. 09- 3747

___________ HONG MOU HUAN G,

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

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 094- 921- 901) Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 22, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , FU E N T E S and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y2, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM H ong M ou H uang pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) a f

f i r mi n g th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) d e n i a l o f a s y l u m,2

w i th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ C A T ” ) . We w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I. H ong M ou H uang, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2007 and w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs forbei ng an al i en p re se n t w ith o u t v a lid d o c u m e n tatio n . H u a n g a p p lied f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, a n d C A T p ro tec tio n , cla im in g th a t h e h a d b e e n p e rse c u ted f o r re sis tin g C h in a ’s f

a m ily pl anni ng pol i cy . H uang al s o s t at ed i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on thathe fe ar ed he w oul d be fi ned, j ai l ed, and t or tur ed forhi s i l l egal departur e i f he r eturned t o C hi na. D u rin g th e h e a rin g o n h is a p p lica tio n , H u a n g tes tifie d th a t h is w if e w a s f o rc e d to have a n i ntr aut er i ne devi ce i m pl ant ed af t erthe bi r th of thei rfi r s tchi l d. She had the d e v ic e re m o v e d a n d th e c o u p le m o v e d to a n o th e r c ity, o b ta in in g jo b s a t a b ri c k f a c to ry. Som et i m e ther eaf

t er , H uang’ s w i fe be came pr egnantw i th a s econd c hi l d. M eanw hi l e, back i n thei rhom et ow n, the author i t i es began c om i ng t o H uang’ s par ent s ’ hous e i n s ear ch of hi s w i fe be caus e s he fa i l ed t o r eportforgynecol ogi cal chec k- ups . T he author i t i es eventual l ydet ai ned H uang’ s par ent s i n an ef for tt o for ce hi s w i fe t o appea r . A ft er l earni ng aboutthe det ent i on, H uang’ s w i fe r eturned and ga ve her s el f up t o the author i t i es a n d a f o rc e d a b o rtio n w a s p e rf o rm e d . A b o u t se v e n y e a rs la ter , H u a n g f led C h in a . H e d id nott es t i fyaboutthe cl ai m i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on thathe fe ar ed he w oul d be per s ecut ed fori l l egal l ydepart i ng C hi na i f he w er e t o r eturn.3

T he I J deni ed r el i ef a nd or der ed H uang r emoved t o C hi na, concl udi ng thathe had nots uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. T he I J concl uded that , as a mat t erof l aw , H uang coul d not m ai nt ai n a cl ai m foras y l um bas ed on hi s w i fe’ s for ced a bor t i on. H e furtherconcl uded th a tHu a n g h a d f

a i l e d t o p r e s e n ta n ye v i d e n c e th a th e h i ms e l f h a d b e e n p e r s e c u t e d . As fo r th e c lai m reg ard ing fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n fo r i ll eg all yd ep arti n g C h ina, th e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t H u a n g h a d w a iv e d th e c laim b yf a ili n g to tes tifya b o u t it . T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, hol di ng that , al though H uang “mayhave engage d i n ‘ otherr es i s t ance ’ ” t o C hi na’ s coer ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy , he had not dem on strat ed an yharm t o h i m sel f ri si ng t o the l evel of persecut i on . T he B IA al so rejected H u an g ’s claim that h e w o u ld b e p u n ishe d fo r i ll eg all yleav ing C h ina. T h e B o ard n o ted th at th e f

ac t th at a c o u n trym ayp u n ish o r pro sec u te a c it izen fo r i ll eg al de p arture d o e s n o t in g e n e ra l q u a lifyth a t p e rso n f o r a sy lu m . T h e B o a rd th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re is i ns uffi ci entevi dence i n the r ecor d t o es t abl i s h thatanyfutur e puni s hm entH uang cl ai m ed mi g h tb e i mp o s e d wo u l d c o n s t i tu t e p e r s e c u t i o n . Hu a n g f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252 t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval . I n thi s cas e, the B I A aff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the I J and di s cus s ed s om e of the b a s e s f o r t h e IJ ’s d e c is io n , s o w e th e re f o re re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e IJ a n d B IA . See C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n doi ng s o, w e r evi ew fac tual f in d in g s f o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e a n d m a yn o t d istu rb th e m “ ‘u n les s a n yre a so n a b le4

adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ’ ” Sandi e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 562 F . 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )). W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overconcl us i ons of l aw , s ubj ectt o the es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of def er ence acc or ded age ncydeci s i on- m aki ng. See Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 231 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). U n d e r th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t (“ IN A ” ), an a p p lica n t m a yd e m o n stra te eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum b ysh o w ing eith er p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T he I N A fur thers t at es that“a p e rs o n w h o h a s b e e n f

o rc e d to a b o rt a p re g n a n c yo r t o u n d e rg o in v o lu n ta ry st e ri liz a tio n . . . s h a ll b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n p e rs e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f p o litic a l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( B ) . W e r ece nt l yhel d, how ever , thatther e i s no aut om at i c r efuge e s t atus fors pous es of i ndi vi dual s s ubj ect ed t o coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es . L i n- Z heng v. A tt ’yG en . , 5 5 7 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (en b an c). T h u s, the IJ a n d the B IA pr oper l yhel d thatH uang w as notent i t l ed t o as y l um bas ed on hi s w i fe’ s abort i on. B u t sp o u se s re m a in e lig ib le f o r re lief if th e yc a n e sta b lish th a t th e yp e rso n a lly w e re p e rse c u ted f

o r re sis tin g a c o e rc iv e f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licy , o r th a t th e yh a v e a w e llf o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n f

o rth a tr e s i s t a n c e . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) . We agr ee w i th the I J and B I A thatH uang has notm ade s uch a s how i ng. T her e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d thatH uang hi m s el f w as per s ecut ed on ac countof hi s w i fe’ s s econd5

p re g n a n c y . H e w a s n o t ar re ste d , d e tain e d , o r p h y sic a llyh a rm e d . S e e A h m e d v . A sh c ro f t, 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “per s ecut i on connot es extr eme behavi or , i ncl udi ng thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thatthey c o n stitu te a th re a t to life o r f re e d o m ” ). A s f

o r th e d e ten tio n o f

H u a n g ’s p a re n ts, th e ir exper i ence s cannotes t abl i s h hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um undera s t atut orys cheme that ext ends r efuge e s t atus onl yt o the i ndi vi dual w ho has been pe r s ecut ed. See Li n- Z heng, 557 F. 3d at156. I n hi s br i ef be for e thi s C our t , H uang t akes i s s ue w i th the I J ’ s concl us i on thathe h a s n e ith e r a lleg e d n o r p ro v e n a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n in C h in a f o r h is r es i s t ance t o the coe r ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . H e as s ert s thathi s t es t i m onyaboutt he det ent i on of hi s par ent s pr oves thathe has a w el l - founded f earthathe al s o w oul d be det ai ned byauthor i t i es i f he r eturns t o C hi na. I ti s uncl earw hetherH uang i s as s ert i ng th a t h e f e a rs h e w ill b e d e tain e d a s p u n ish m e n t f o r h is p rio r re sis tan c e to th e f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic y , o r t h a t h e w ill b e d e ta in e d if h is w if e b e c o m e s p re g n a n t in th e f u tu re . T h is la c k o f

c lar ityis o f

n o m o m e n t, ho w e v e r, b e c a u se H u a n g n e v e r p re se n ted th is c laim t o the I J orthe B I A . B yfai l i ng t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , H uang has fai l ed to p rese rve h is r igh t t o jud ici al rev iew o f th e c lai m . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ); A b d u lr ah m an v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). F in a lly , H u a n g se e k s to h a v e h is c a se re m a n d e d f o r f u rth e r f a c t f in d in g o n h isTh e g o v e rn me n ta s s e r t s th a tth i s Co u r tl a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w Hu a n g ’ s c l a i m 1 becau se i ti s unex hau st ed insofar as H uan g fail ed to t est i fyabo ut i tbefo re the IJ. B ecause the B I A el ect ed t o addr es s and r es ol ve the cl ai m , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew i t . See L in v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 3 -24 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 6 cl ai m ed fe arof futur e per s ecut i on fori l l egal l ydepart i ng C hi na. A s des cr i bed ea r l i er , t he 1 IJ he ld tha t H u an g w aive d this clai m fo r asy lum b yfa il ing to testi fyab o u t i t. T h e B IA rejected the c lai m o n the m erit s b ec au se th ere is no t “su ff ici en t evid en ce in the rec o rd in d ica tin g th a t an yp u n ish m e n t th a t th e re sp o n d e n t cla im s w o u ld b e im p o se d w o u ld cons t i tut e per s ecut i on ( as oppos ed t o pr os ecut i on and l egi t i m at e puni s hm ent ) ort or tur e. ” H uang now ar gues thatthe I J fai l ed t o carryouthi s dutyt o aff i r m at i vel ydevel op the r ecor d on the i l l egal departur e cl ai m and thatthi s fai l ur e ent i t l es hi m t o fur ther p ro c e e d in g s o n th e c laim . A lth o u g h th is c o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d th a t an IJ h a s a d u tyto as s i s tan appl i canti n devel opi ng the r ecor d – s uch as advi s i ng the appl i cantaboutw hat c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e w ill b e e x p e c ted a n d a llo w in g th e a p p lica n t an o p p o rtu n ityto o b tain it o r e x p lain its a b se n c e – th a t d u tyd o e s n o t re liev e th e a p p lica n t o f h is u lti m a te bur den of pr ovi ng ent i t l ementt o as y l um . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) . M or eover , t he i s s ue her e i s notthatthe I J fai l ed t o not i fyH uang aboutthe nee d forcorr obor at i ve evi dence orpr event ed hi m fr om pr es ent i ng evi dence orexpl anat i ons , s ee Chukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F. 3d 185, 192- 93 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , butr atherthatH uang, w ho w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el , fai l ed t o s uppor ta cl ai m he l i s t ed i n hi s appl i cat i on. W e thus agr ee w i th the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatH uang fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof7

futur e per s ecut i on fori l l egal l ydepart i ng C hi na. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.