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 Third C ir c uit 10-15-2008 

# Ji ang 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 . 07-2198

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

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 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " Ji an g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 366. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/366NOT 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- 2198

___________ J I NG GUO J I ANG, 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 77 958 190) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Eugene Pugl i es e

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

A pr i l 16, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: O ct ober15, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J i ng G uo J i ang pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) d ec isi o n d en y ing h is m o ti o n to rec o n side r i ts aff irm an ce o f th e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e . 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.J ia n g is a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C h in a . H e c a m e to th e U n ite d S ta te s in 2 0 0 1 . S h o rtlya f

ter h is a rriv a l, th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liza tio n S e rv ice iss u e d a n o tice to ap p ea r ch arg ing that Jian g w as su b ject t o rem o v al be ca u se h e d id n o t po sses s a v ali d en try documentatthe t i m e of hi s appl i cat i on foradmi s s i on. T hr ough couns el , J i ang conc eded that h e w as re m o v ab le as c h arg ed an d ap p li ed fo r asy lum . T h e IJ a lso c o n side red Jian g ’s e lig ib ili tyf

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l an d re lief

u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith im m ig ra tio n re g u la tio n s . Jia n g tes tifie d th a t h e lef t C h in a b e c a u se h e f

e a re d th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld steri li ze h im . A fter h is fir st da u g h ter w as b o rn in 1 9 9 1 , the g o v ern m en t r eq u ir ed Jian g ’s w i fe t o have a n I U D i ns ert ed. Fi ve y ear s l at er , s he appl i ed for , and r ece i ved, perm i s s i on t o have a notherchi l d. J i ang’ s s econd da ught erw as born i n 1996, aft erw hi ch the g o v e rn m e n t re q u ire d h is w if e to h a v e a n o th e r IU D in se rte d . Jia n g w a n ted a so n , an d h is w if e w e n t to a p ri v a te d o c to r t o h a v e th e IU D re m o v e d . In 2 0 0 1 , s h e b e c a m e p re g n a n t. G o v ern m en t of

ficials l ea rne d o f th e p reg n an cyd u ri n g an ex am ination , an d told Jian g ’s w if e th a t sh e m u st h a v e a n a b o rtio n . A f ter th e d o c to r sta ted th a t h is w if e w a s to o w e a k to h a v e a n a b o rt io n , th e g o v e rn m e n t to ld J ia n g ’s w if e th a t J ia n g m u s t r e p o rtf o r s te ri liz a tio n . Jia n g w e n t in to h id in g a n d th e n lef t C h in a . T h e re a f

ter , the g o v e rn m e n t f

o rc e d h is w if

e to h a v e a n a b o rtio n . Jia n g tes tifie d th a t, i f h e re tu rn e d to C h in a , h e w o u ld b e f o rc ib ly s te ri liz e d a n d ja ile d b e c a u s e h e d e p a rt e d th e c o u n tr yille g a lly. T he I J concl uded thatJ i ang w as notcr edi bl e, and thathe di d notm eethi s bur den of pr oof. T he I J expl ai ned thatJ i ang’ s t es t i m onyw as vague a nd gener al . T he I J not ed th a t a le tter p u rp o rte d lyw ritten b yJia n g ’s w if e w a s w ritten b yth e sa m e p e rso n w h o w ro teJ i a n g ’ s a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n , a n d th a tth e l e t t e ra n d s t a t e me n tc o n t a i n e d th e s a me

in f o rm a tio n . T h e IJ f

o u n d Jia n g ’s w if

e ’s le tter a n d /o r h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n f ra u d u len t. T he I J di d notbel i eve thata pr i vat e doct orw oul d r emove an I U D i ns ert ed bythe governm entbeca us e the doct orw oul d be s ubj ectt o i m pr i s onm ent . T he I J al s o di d not bel i eve thata hus band w oul d l eave the countryforfea rof s t er i l i zat i on w hen hi s w i fe w as p r e g n a n t , h a d tw o o th e rc h i l d r e n , a n d h a d v i o l a t e d C h i n a ’ s b i r th c o n tr o l p o l i c i e s . F i n a l l y, the I J found J i ang notcr edi bl e bas ed on hi s t es t i m onythathe coul d notr eturn t o C hi na b e c a u se h e lef

t il leg a lly . T h e IJ n o ted th a t Jia n g lef t th e c o u n tryw ith a C h in e se p a ss p o rt, and thati tappea r ed thatJ i ang w as r epea t i ng s om ethi ng thathe had he ar d, w hi ch had no a p p lica tio n to h is c a se . T h e IJ f o u n d Jia n g ’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n f riv o lo u s a n d d e n ied h is appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. T h e B IA ad o p ted a n d af firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n . T h e B IA ag ree d that Jian g ’s acc ountw as s o devoi d of det ai l as t o be l acki ng i n cr edi bi l i ty . T he B I A expl ai ned thatthe r ecor d di d notr efl ectthe det ai l s expec t ed forpopul at i on contr ol cl ai m s , s uch as the names of f

aci l i t i es w her e the medi cal pr ocedur es w er e per form ed, the names ornum ber o f o f f icia ls o r m e d ica l p e rso n n e l in v o lv e d , an d th e d e tails o f th e a lien ’s a ttem p ts to a v o id the pr ocedur es , i ncl udi ng the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the att empt s t o fl ee orhi de. T he B IA a lso n o ted th a t Jia n g a n d h is w if e d id n o t ad e q u a telye x p lain w h yC h in e se o f f icia ls d i d n o ta b o r tJ i a n g ’ s wi f e ’ s th i r d p r e g n a n c ywh e n i twa s f i r s td i s c o v e r e d . T h e BI A, how ever , di s agr eed w i th the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatJ i ang’ s cl ai m w as fr i vol ous beca us e J i ang d id n o t h a v e a s u f

f ic ie n t o p p o rt u n ity to a c c o u n t f o r h is c la im ’s im p la u s ib ility. Jian g fil ed a m o ti o n to rec o n side r th e B IA ’s de cisi o n . Jian g arg u ed that the B IAerr ed byr equi r i ng m or e det ai l s w her e the I J di d notas k form or e i nform at i on atthe

h e a rin g . H e sta ted th a t h is a tto rn e yw a s n o t re q u ire d to f les h o u t all o f

th e d e tails o f

h is cl ai m . J i ang al s o ar gued thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed w as s uffi ci ent , thatthe I J ’ s di s bel i ef thatpeopl e w entt o pr i vat e doct or s t o have I U D s r emoved w as notgr ounds t o deny as y l um , and thatther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence s how i ng thathe fl ed C hi na t o es cape the th re a t o f s te ri liz a tio n . T he B I A deni ed J i ang’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der , expl ai ni ng thathe as s ert ed br oad a lleg a tio n s o f

e rro r a n d d id n o t sh o w w h e re th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n tlya n d a d e q u a tely d etail ed to p rov e the claim cre d ible an d the a d v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing in erro r. T h e B IA s t at ed thatJ i ang onl yonce r efe rr ed t o t es t i m onyhe gave abouthi s fea r s of bei ng s t er i l i zed, and he di d notr efe rt o anyof hi s othert es t i m onyorevi dence t o s how thatthe c o n c e rn s re la tin g to h is o v e ra ll c re d ib ility w e re u n f o u n d e d . O u r j u ri sd ict ion is l im it ed to a re v iew o f th e B IA ’s de cisi o n d en y ing Jian g ’s m ot i on t o r econs i der . J i ang di d notfi l e a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s i ni t i al deci s i on di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l of the I J ’ s deni al of as y l um , and w e maynotr evi ew that deci s i on. See St one v. I . N . S. , 514 U . S. 386, 405- 06 ( 1995) ( hol di ng m ot i on t o r econs i der d i d n o tt o l l th e t i m e t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w o f

th e B I A ’ s o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n ) . We r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r econs i derforabus e of di s cr et i on. B or ges v. G o n z a les , 4 0 2 F .3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e w ill d istu rb th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to r econs i deronl yi f i tw as arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . I d. I n deny i ng the mot i on t o r econs i der , the B I A deci ded thatJ i ang had nots how n that th e a d v e rs e c re d ib ility f in d in g , w h ic h w a s d is p o s itiv e o f h is a s y lu m c la im , w a s in c o rr e c t.1 I n hi s br i ef, J i ang addr es s es hi s w i fe’ s s t at ementand the I J ’ s bel i ef thata per s on i n 1 2 ci r cumst ance s w oul d nothave f l ed C hi na. B eca us e J i ang di d notaddr es s thes e fa ct or s i n 3 h is m o tio n to re c o n s id e r, w e d id n o t c o n s id e r t h e s e a rg u m e n ts . A lth o u g h Jia n g a rg u e d th a t th e B IA e rre d b yre q u irin g a d d iti o n a l d e tails w h e re th e IJ d id nots eek mor e i nform at i on atthe hea r i ng, an as y l um appl i cantbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng h is e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m b a se d o n sp e c if ic f a c ts a n d c re d ib le te stim o n y . G u o v . A sh c ro f t, 386 F. 3d 556 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . J i ang di d notcont end thatthe I J pr ecl uded hi m i n anyw ay fr om pr es ent i ng hi s cas e. W e agr ee w i th J i ang thatthe I J appea r s t o have s pecul at ed that p riv a te d o c to rs in C h in a w o u ld n o t re m o v e a n IU D , b u t th e IJ d id n o t b a se its c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on s ol el yon thi s fac t or . J i ang di d notaddr es s i n hi s m ot i on t o r econs i derthe c o n c e rn s a b o u t h is w if

e ’s s ta te m e n t o r h is te s tim o n yth a t h e h a d d e p a rt e d C h in a ille g a lly. J i ang has nots how n thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r econs i derw as a rb i tr a ry , i rr a t i o n a l , o rc o n tr a ryt o l a w. 1 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.