2007 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 3-28-2007 

# Liu 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 . 06-1678

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_2007

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 2007 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 " L iu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1419. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1419NOT 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. 06- 1678 M AR T I N L I U, Pet i t i oner v. DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y; ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on and O r derof the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls I m m i gr at i on J udge: R . K . M al l oy ( B I A N o. A 96 260 151- Phi l adel phi a) Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 15, 2007 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, G R E E N B E R G , and LO U R I E , * C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 28, 2007) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

*H onor abl e A l an D . L our i e, U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe Feder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2

G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s m at t ercomes on be for e the courton a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on and or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) dat ed J anuary26, 2006, aff i r m i ng a deci s i on and or derof an i m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) of M ar ch 7, 2005. T he pr ocee di ngs befor e thi s cour tar e the cul m i nat i on of r emoval pr ocee di ngs comm ence d on M ar ch 14, 2003. D ur i ng t he cour s e of the pr ocee di ngs the pet i t i oner , M art i n L i u, appl i ed for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). A h e a rin g w a s h e ld o n th e m a tter b e f o re th e IJ o n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 , at w h ich , in an or al deci s i on, t he I J deni ed Li u r el i ef on a l l thr ee gr ounds butgr ant ed hi m the pr i vi l ege of vol unt arydepartur e. T he I J deni ed the appl i cat i on foras y l um both on the mer i t s and on the gr ound that L i u d i d n o ta p p l y f

o ra s yl u m w i t h i n o n e ye a ro f a r r i v i n g i n th i s c o u n t r y, a s r e q u i r e d b y 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )(B ), an d th e re w e re n o c irc u m sta n c e s to e x c u se th e d e lay so a s to br i ng t he as y l um appl i cat i on w i t hi n 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( D ) . T he I J deni ed w i t hhol di ng of r emoval on t he gr ound t hatL i u di d notm eetthe bur den of pr oof t o demonstr at e thathe w as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde r8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . T he I J ci t ed Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , on t hi s poi nt . T he I J deni ed r el i ef unde rthe C A T beca us e Li u di d not estab li sh the b asis fo r suc h reli ef as a fa ctua l m att er. L iu th e re a f

te r a p p e a le d to th e B IA w h ic h h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (b )(3 ) a n d (9 ). T h e B IA d e sig n a ted a sin g le m e m b e r to h e a r th e m a tter p u rsu a n t to3

8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4- 5) . See D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 234 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc) . T hatm emberon behal f of the B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the dec i s i on and or derof t he I J . T he mem bernot ed, how ever , thati nas m uch as L i u “di d nots peci fi cal l ychal l enge t he deni al of hi s appl i cat i on forpr ot ect i on underthe [CA T ] thati s s ue i s notpr es erved, and i s notbefor e us . ” A pp. at3. I n thes e ci r cumst ance s i ti s notbefor e us ei t her . See D roz d v . IN S , 1 5 5 F . 3 d 8 1 , 9 0 -91 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). L iu h as f il ed h is pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(2 ), (d). I n vi ew of the ci r cumst ance t hatt he B I A di d notr enderan opi ni on butm er el yaff i r m ed by adopt i ng t he I J ’ s opi ni on, w e r evi ew the dec i s i on and or derof the I J . See D i a, 353 F. 3d at245. In this proceed i ng L i u rai ses the fo l l ow i ng i ssues: 1. W hethert he I J ’ s deci s i on t o denyhi s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval fai l ed t o cons i dert he patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of C hr i s t i an C hi nes e i n I ndones i a? 2. W hethert he IJ erred i n d et erm i ning t hat he had no tsuffered p ast per s ecut i on? 3 . W h ethe r th e IJ e rred in d eterm ining that h e w o u ld n o t suf fe r fu ture per s ecut i on? 4. W hethert hi s appea l s houl d be r emanded t o t he B I A fora thr ee- m ember p an el rev iew u n d er 8 C . F . R . 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)? 5. W hethert he IJ erred i n fail i ng t o co nsi der al l cou ntrycon dit i on report s, and err on eou sl yrel i ed ex cl usi velyon the S t at e D epart m ent R epo rt s? T hes e i s s ues ar e r ai s ed i n t he cont extof a r evi ew of the deni al of the w i t hhol di ng4

of r emoval as L i u i s notchal l engi ng the deni al of as y l um and hi s C A T cl ai m s ar e not befo re us. In o rd e r to b e e n tit led to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l L iu h a s th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f to es t abl i s h t hati f he i s r emoved he w oul d fac e thr eat s t o hi s l i fe orfr eedom on accountof hi s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) ; T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). H e m u st establish the threa t bya “ clea r pro b ab il ity ” w h ich m ea n s “m o re l i kelyt han no t . ” Id. O f cou rs e, i n v i ew of the proced ural po sture of the case, w e m ust uphol d t he fi ndi ngs r ej ect i ng pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s i f theyar e s uppor t ed by“r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itted). L iu sim p lyh a s n o t m e t h is b u rd e n in th e se p ro c e e d in g s. A f ter th e IJ th o ro u g h ly r evi ew ed the evi dence s he conc l uded thatthe adve r s e i nci dent s t o w hi ch Li u t es t i fi ed w e re th e a c ts o f

c rim in a ls a n d d id n o t co n stitu te p e rse c u tio n . W e d o n o t se e a n yb a sis to r e j e c th e rc o n c l u s i o n n o rd o we s e e a n yp r o c e d u r a l r e a s o n t o g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. F in a lly , w e re

jec t L iu ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e B IA c o u ld n o t d e sig n a te a sin g le m em ber t o aff

i rm t he d eci si on and order of t he IJ. H i s r easoning is as fol l ow s: “T he case i s notappr opr i at e foraff i r m ance w i t houtopi ni on beca us e the I J err ed as a mat t erof l aw and fa ct[i n] deny i ng [Li u’ s ] cl ai m s forr el i ef. T he B oar d cannotaff i r m w i t houtopi ni on5

beca us e the r es ul tr eac hed byt he I J w as i ncorr ectand thus ” the cr i t er i a fora one- m ember d is p o s itio n in 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )( 3 , 4 , & 5 ) h a v e n o t b e e n m e t. P e titio n e r’ s b r. a t 2 3 . T he p robl em w i t h thi s ci rcul ar l og i c i s that w e are holdi ng that the IJ di d n ot err as a m a tter o f law o r f a c t an d th u s th e c riter ia f o r a o n e -m e m b e r d isp o sitio n h a v e b e e n m e t. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons t he pet i t i on forr evi ew of the dec i s i on and or derof the B I A dat ed J anuary26, 2006, w i l l be deni ed.