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 Third C irc uit 7-12-2010 

# Y i Zhe ng v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3950

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Y i Zhe n g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 973. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/973NOT 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- 3950

___________ YI M I NG Z HE NG, 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 099- 074- 185) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Sus an R oy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y7, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , G R E E N A W A Y and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y12, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Y i M in g Z h e n g (“ Z h e n g ” ) p e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

a B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) deci s i on uphol di ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) or derof r emoval . Forthe r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, 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.2 I Z h e n g , a c itiz e n o f

C h in a , e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t in s p e c tio n in 2 0 0 5 . H e w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs and fi l ed a r eques tforas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e bas ed on hi s w i fe’ s for ced s te ri liz a tio n . I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef, Z heng t es t i fi ed thathi s w i fe ga ve bi r th t o a second chil d in 199 2 an d, w hil e he w as out t o sea, she w as forci blyst eri l i zed. H e al so tes tifie d th a t, i n 2 0 0 1 , h is s iste r L a n M e i Z h e n g a n d h e r h u sb a n d w e n t in to h id in g a t h is h o m e b e c a u se sh e w a s p re g n a n t w ith h e r se c o n d c h ild , in v io latio n o f C h in a ’s f

a m ily pl anni ng pol i ci es . Z heng t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s w i fe w er e pr es entw hen fa m i l ypl anni ng cadr es came t o t ake Lan M ei . H e t es t i fi ed thathe i nt ervened a nd w as arr es t ed, det ai ned f o r f iv e d a y s, a n d b e a ten w ith stic k s. Z h e n g sta ted th a t th e c a d re s m a d e h im p ro m ise to n e v e r s p e a k o f

th e b e a tin g a n d to n o t in te rf e re w ith f

a m ily p la n n in g o f

f ic ia ls a g a in . Z h e n g te s tif

ie d th a t h e s o u g h t m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t f o r t h e b e a tin g a f

te r h is re le a s e . N ot abl y , Z heng omi t t ed anydi s cus s i on of hi s i nt ervent i on on hi s s i s t er ’ s behal f and s u b s e q u e n t a rr e s t a n d a b u s e u n til h is th ir d a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . T h e IJ d e n ie d re lie f. Z heng appe al ed, and the B I A uphel d the I J ’ s deci s i on bas ed on Zheng’ s l ack of c r e d i b i l i tya n d f

a i l u r e t o c o rr o b o r a t e . Z h e n g th e n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). B e c a u se th e B IA iss u e d its3

ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan thatof the I J . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e al s o l ook t o the dec i s i on of the I J t o the ext entthatthe B I A defe rr ed t o oradopt ed the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 44 6 F . 3d 50 8, 51 5 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). W e revi ew the A gen cy ’s factual det erm i nati on s, in c lu d in g a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s, f o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e , an d w ill u p h o ld s uch det erm i nat i ons unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o r eac h a c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n . S e e F ia d jo e v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 1 1 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 5 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e revi ew theirl egal conclusi on s de novo , s u b je c t to e s ta b lis h e d p ri n c ip le s o f d e f e re n c e . S ee S m ri k o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 7 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). In d e n y in g re lief

, the IJ r e a so n e d th a t Z h e n g w a s n o t cr e d ib le a n d th a t h e f a iled to c o rro b o ra te h is c laim s. B e c a u se Z h e n g ’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s f iled in Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , h is pet i t i on i s governed bythe R E A L I D A ctof 2005. Pr i ort o the i m pl ement at i on of the R E A L ID A ct, m ino r i n co n sist en cies tha t did n o t go to the h ea rto f a n asy lum ap p li ca n t’ s cl ai m w er e i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tadver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons . See G ao v. A sh c ro f t, 29 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In c o n tra st, th e R E A L ID A c t p e rm its c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s b a s e d o n , in tera lia , inco n sist en cies tha t do n o t go to the h ea rt o f th e a l i e n ’ s c l a i m. S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( i i i ) . We h a v e n o ta p p l i e d th e RE AL I D A cts t andar d i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on. H er e, beca us e the i ncons i s t enci es i dent i fi ed by the IJ r el at e t o the heartof Z hen g’s cl ai m s for r el i ef, and w ou l d thus supp ortan ad verse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on even unde rthe pr e- R E A L I D A cts t andar d, w e nee d notcons i derT he I J not ed thatZ heng s oughtvenue i n N ew J er s eyand r ai s ed the cl ai m bas ed on 1 h i s r e s i s t a n c e t o h i s s i s t e r ’ s f o r c e d s t e r i l i z a t i o n o n l y after th e S e c o n d C irc u it ru led in L in v. U ni t ed St at es D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 494 F. 3d 296 ( 2d C i r . 2007) , thatthe s pous es of in d iv id u a ls w h o w e re ste rilize d o r f o rc e d to u n d e rg o a b o rtio n s w e re n o t per se r efuge es u n d e rth e I NA. 4 w hether8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) i s cons i s t entw i th due pr oces s . See W ang v. H o ld e r, 5 6 9 F .3 d 5 3 1 , 5 3 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c a n v a s s in g C ir c u it la w o n th e p ro v is io n ). I n fi ndi ng Z heng i ncr edi bl e, the I J r el i ed on s ever al di s cr epanc i es and i ncons i s t enci es i n the r ecor d. Fi r s t , the I J found i m pl aus i bl e Zheng’ s expl anat i ons for o m itt in g h is “ o th e r re sis tan c e ” c laim f ro m h is f irst tw o a sy lu m a p p lica tio n s: th a t h is w if e ’s h a rm w a s m o re se v e re , an d th a t b e c a u se th e o f f icia ls w h o b e a t h im to ld h im n o t to s ayanythi ng, he w as afr ai d t o t el l A m er i can of fi ci al s abouthi s s i s t erorhi s arr es t– even tho u g h h e d id n o t hav e a p rob lem tel li n g A m erican o ff ici als ab o u t his w ife’s s t er i l i zat i on. 1 I n addi t i on, the I J i dent i fi ed a s i gni fi cantdi s cr epanc ybetw een Zheng’ s ear l i er as y l um appl i cat i on and hi s fi nal appl i cat i on: i n the ea r l i erappl i cat i on, he s t at ed thathe had gott en w or d thathi s s i s t er , L an M ei , w as s t er i l i zed i n 2001, w hi l e he w as m aki ng p re p a ra tio n s to lea v e th e c o u n try ; late r, h e a lleg e d th a t h e h a d b e e n p re se n t an d tried to i nt ervene, and w as beat en byauthor i t i es as a r es ul t . T he I J al s o not ed thathi s ear l i er appl i cat i ons cont ai ned no i ndi cat i on thatL an M ei and herhus band had gone i nt o hi di ng w i th Z heng. Fi nal l y , the I J hel d thatZ heng’ s demeanordur i ng the r emoval hear i ng detr act ed fr om hi s cr edi bi l i ty , as he r epea t edl yhes i t at ed bef or e ans w er i ng y es - or - noT he I J al s o bas ed the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on on a fi ndi ng thatZ heng 2 admi t t ed l y i ng w hen pr ovi di ng an addr es s i n Phoeni x, A r i zona – w her e he onc e s ought venue – w hi ch turned outt o be the addr es s of a s hoppi ng cent er . T he B I A rul ed thatthe IJ c le a rl ye rr e d in th a t r e s p e c t, a s Z h e n g a d m itte d o n ly th a t th e a d d re s s w a s in c o rr e c t. W e a g re e w ith th e B o a rd th a t, no tw ith sta n d in g th e IJ’ s e rro r, th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . 5 ques t i ons , s ugges t i ng thathe w as try i ng t o pr ovi de ans w er s the I J w ant ed. G i ven that th e se in c o n sis ten c ies a n d d isc re p a n c ies w e re su b sta n tial, an d th a t Z h e n g w a s u n a b le to sat i sfact ori l yexp l ai n them , w e are not com pell ed to di sagree w i th the A gen cy ’s adv ers e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. 2 F u rt h e r, t h e IJ re a s o n e d th a t Z h e n g f a ile d to a d e q u a te ly co rr o b o ra te h is c la im . A deni al of r el i ef maybe gr ounded on a f ai l ur e t o corr obor at e w hen “( 1) the I J i dent i fi es fac t s forw hi ch i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec tthe appl i cantt o pr oduce c orr obor at i on, ( 2) the appl i cantfai l s t o corr obor at e, and ( 3) the appl i cantfai l s t o adequa t el yexpl ai n that fai l ur e. ” C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F. 3d 185, 191- 92 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng A bdul ai v. A sh c ro f t, 23 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 )). H e re , the IJ f a u lted Z h e n g f

o r f a ili n g to obt ai n: ( 1) m edi cal document at i on thathe w as tr eat ed forthe bea t i ng, and ( 2) an amended s t at ementfr om hi s w i fe r egar di ng the i nci dentw i th Z heng’ s s i s t er , even though th e w if e w a s a lleg e d lyp re se n t. A s t o the medi cal evi dence , Z heng ar gues thatthe I J err ed byfai l i ng t o cons i der h is e x p lan a tio n th a t h e d id n o t th in k su c h e v id e n c e w o u ld b e a v a ilab le b e c a u se h e w e n t to a “tr adi t i onal doct or . ” H ow ever , the I J cl ear l ycons i der ed Zheng’ s expl anat i on, as w el l as6

hi s admi s s i on thathe di d noteven tryt o obt ai n anys uch document at i on. G i ven that Z heng made no eff

or tt o getcorr obor at i ng document s , des pi t e the opportuni tyt o do s o, w e ar e notcompel l ed t o di s agr ee w i th the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thathi s expl anat i on w as i nadequa t e. T he I J al s o t ook i s s ue w i th Z heng’ s fai l ur e t o obt ai n an amended s t at ementfr om h is w if e a b o u t th e in c id e n t w ith h is s iste r. In ste a d , Z h e n g su b m itt e d sta tem e n ts f ro m h is m otherand si st er, L an M ei , descri bing the inci den t . H ow ever, the IJ di scoun t ed those l ett er s beca us e theycont ai ned unexpl ai ned al t er at i ons and mi s tr ans l at i ons . A s i de fr om Z h e n g ’s u n d e taile d a rg u m e n t th a t th o se a ltera tio n s a n d m istra n sla tio n s w e re in sig n if ica n t, he has nots how n thatthe I J err ed i n herdet erm i nat i on. Fi nal l y , Z heng ar gues thathe w as deni ed due pr oces s beca us e the I J demonstr at ed b ias a g a in st h im . S p e c if ica lly , h e a rg u e s th a t th e IJ e v in c e d b ias b y(1 ) c a lli n g h is cr edi bi l i tyi nt o ques t i on w hen he r epea t edl yfai l ed t o gi ve di r ectans w er s t o y es - or - no ques t i ons , and ( 2) ni tpi cki ng hi s s uppor t i ng document at i on, w hi ch cont ai ned m istran slat ion s an d u n ex p lai n ed alt era ti o n s. W e d isag ree . A s to the firstissue , the IJ appr opr i at el ycons i der ed Zheng’ s demeanori n as s es s i ng hi s cr edi bi l i ty . See C hen v. G o n za les, 4 3 4 F . 3 d 2 1 2 , 2 2 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (“[A ] w itn ess’s ton e a n d d em ea n o r are i m por t antfac t or s i n det erm i ni ng cr edi bi l i ty. . . . ”) . A l though Z heng ar gues that“any r eas onabl e per s on w oul d concl ude . . . that[he] w as ans w er i ng ‘ y es ’ us i ng a non- l exi cal s ound, ” Pet ’ rB r . at14, w e ar e notcompel l ed t o di s agr ee w i th the I J ’ s anal y s i s , t o w hi ch7

w e af for d a gr eatdegr ee of

defe r ence . See D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 252 n. 23 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . L i kew i s e, the I J di d notdepr i ve Zheng of a f ul l and fa i rhear i ng m er el yby cal l i ng i nt o ques t i on the val ue of hi s document aryevi dence , w hen thatevi dence con t ai ned un exp l ai ned al t erat i on s and m i stransl at i on s, ho w ever m i no r tho se i m per fec t i ons m ayhave be en. 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.