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 3-8-2010 

# Hua L an An 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 . 08-3732

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 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 " Hua L an An v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1775. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1775NOT 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. 08- 3732

_____________ HUA L AN AN, 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 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 099 560 424) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Fr eder i c Leeds

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

February26, 2010 B e f o re : C H A G A R E S , S T A P L E T O N , a n d L O U R IE * , C i rcui tJud ges. ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 8, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________

_______________ * H o n o ra b le A lan D . L o u rie , C irc u it Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fort he Feder al C i r cui ts i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

### 2

L O U R I E , C i r cui tJ udge: H ua Lan A n, a ci t i zen of t he Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a fi nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ’ s ”) deni al of herappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . W e def ert o t he I J ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i on, s us t ai ned byt he B I A , thatA n’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e bas ed on s e v e r a l p e r c e i v e d i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a n d wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

### I . BA CK GR OU ND A n ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n l at e N ovember2004 and s ubm i t t ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um i n N ovember2005. I n herappl i cat i on, A n s t at ed thats he had t aken i n and car ed fora N or t h K or ean w om an s he found i n t he s t r eet , w ho had bee n i nj ur ed dur i ng her e s c a p e a c ro s s th e b o rd e r. “ S e v e ra l d a y s la te r,” th e w o m a n w a s ta k e n a w a yb yth e p o lic e . A n w as t ol d byherhus band thata nei ghborhad i nform ed hi m thats he had be en r eport ed f o r k e e p in g a sm u g g ler in h e r h o u se , an d th a t th e p o lice w e re lo o k in g f o r h e r. A n h id w i t h r el at i ves , and w as t ol d byherhus band that“s ever al ” pol i ce of fi cer s came t o t he hous e “s ever al ” t i m es . She t hen fl ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es . I n a phone c onver s at i on, her h u s b a n d to ld h e r t h a t th e p o lic e h a d g o n e to th e h o u s e “ s e v e ra l” tim e s lo o k in g f o r h e r. She al s o s t at ed thatt he pol i ce ha d found an a nt i - C om m uni s tbook, ent i t l ed “The N i ne C r i t i ci s m s t ow ar ds t he C om m uni s tPar t y ” thats he had s entt o herhus band.

### 3

Forcorr obor at i ng evi dence , A n i ncl uded l ett er s fr om herm other , hus band, and uncl e, i n addi t i on t o new s paperar t i cl es w i t h phot os depi ct i ng herpart i ci pat i on i n var i ous a n ti- C o m m u n is t d e m o n s tr a tio n s . A therhear i ng befor e the I J , A n t es t i fi ed thatthe N or t h K or ean w om an had s t ay ed in th e ir h o m e f

o r 2 7 d a y s. In re sp o n se to th e IJ’ s q u e stio n a s to w h yA n ’s s tate m e n t d id n o t spe cify2 7 d ay s, b u t i n stead said “se v era l, ” A n resp o n d ed “I d o n ’trem em b er.” T h e IJ al s o as ked aboutA n’ s hus band’ s s t at ement , w hi ch i ndi cat ed thati thad bee n “a c oupl e of day s , ” and r es ponded t o t he I J ’ s ques t i on as t o w hetheri tw as cons i s t entw i t h her te s tim o n yb ys a y in g th a t it w a s “ [ p ]r e tty m u c h th e s a m e .” An a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e rh u s b a n d h a d s a i d th e p o l i c e i n i t i a l l yv i s i t e d th e i rh o me everyot herw eek, t hatl at ert he vi s i t s w er e aboutonce a m ont h, and thatatthe t i m e, “s om et i m es t heycome everym ont h. ” W hen ques t i oned aboutthe s peci fi c numberof tim e s th e p o lic e h a d c o m e , A n s ta te d “ I d id n ’t s p e c if ic a lly m e a n th e yc o m e e v e ry m o n th . S o m e tim e s th e yc a m e o n c e e v e ry m o n th , a n d s o m e tim e s th e ys to p f o r a f e w m o n th s .” An a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e rn e i g h b o rh a d t o l d h e rh u s b a n d th a tth e p o l i c e h a d s h o wn h i m a w arr antforA n’ s arr es t . She w as as ked forevi dence and, on t he fol l ow i ng dayof her hear i ng, A n s ubm i t t ed a l et t erfr om hernei ghbori n C hi na s t at i ng thatthe pol i ce ha d s h o w n th e n e ig h b o r a w a rr a n t f o r A n ’s a rr e s t. A tt he conc l us i on of the tw o- dayhear i ng the I J found A n’ s t es t i m onyw as not cr edi bl e. C entr al t o t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as the i ncons i s t ency

### 4

betw een A n’s s t at em ent that the N orth K orean w om an st ay ed w i t h h er for “s everal ” day s, hert es t i m onyt hati tw as 27 day s , and the s t at ement s of heruncl e and hus band thati tw as

“ a c o u p le” o f

d a y s. In a d d iti o n , the IJ id e n tifie d o th e r b a se s f o r th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on. Speci fi cal l y , A n pr oduced a l ett erfr om hernei ghborw ho had s een the arr es tw arr ant , al t hough s he had t es t i fi ed thati thad “be en a w hi l e” s i nce s he had s poken to h e r n e ig h b o r. A ls o , A n ’s s ta te m e n t s a id s h e w a s “ p e rc e iv e d to b e a s m u g g le r,” w her eas s he t es t i fi ed thats he cons i der ed her s el f t o be a good Samar i t an. T he I J found pr obl emat i c A n’ s expl anat i on t hatt he pol i ce w er e uni nt er es t ed i n herhus band bec aus e he pl ace d al l t he bl ame on herand bec aus e of he rt es t i m onythatherhus band had not e x p la in e d th is in h is s ta te m e n t b e c a u s e h e w a s a f ra id it w o u ld le a d to m a ri ta l p ro b le m s . T he I J al s o found A n’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng the fr equenc yof pol i ce vi s i t s t o be i ncons i s t ent . L as t l y , t he I J found thatA n had notpr oduced s uffi ci entevi dence t o s how th a t th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t is a w a re o f h e r in v o lv e m e n t in a n ti-g o v e rn m e n t p ro tes ts in t he U nit ed S t at es. A s a r es ul tof hi s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, the I J det erm i ned thatA n had n o t prese n ted s u ff

ici en t evid en ce to m ee t her b u rde n o f p rov ing p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i n or dert o qual i fyforas y l um . T he I J al s o found uns uppor t ed A n’ s al t ernat e gr ound t o s uppor ta cl ai m of pol i t i cal per s ecut i on, bas ed on herpr ot es t s agai ns tt he C hi nes e governm entw hi l e i n t he U ni t ed St at es , becaus e s he i s not i dent i fi abl e i n anyphot os i n w hi ch s he’ s s how n pr ot es t i ng and has notauthor ed any

### 5

ar t i cl es orot herw i s e made her s el f i dent i fi abl e. T he I J found thatA n di d notpr es ent evi dence t hats he more l i kel yt han notw oul d fac e t or tur e i f s he r eturned t o C hi na, and t h a ts h e was t h e r e f

o r e n o te n t i t l e d t o p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rCA T. O n appea l , t he B I A adopt ed the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, bas ed on the i ncons i s t enci es ci t ed byt he I J . T he B I A s peci fi cal l ynot ed the i ncons i s t enci es as t o t he num berof day s t he N or t h K or ean w om an s t ay ed i n A n’ s hom e and the fr equenc yof po l i ce vis i t s i n aff

i rm i ng t he d eci si on of the IJ . An t i me l yp e t i t i o n e d f

o rr e v i e w. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a). 

### I I . DI SCUSSI ON I n or dert o be gr ant ed as y l um , A n m us ts how thats he ca nnotr eturn t o C hi na “bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof 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. ” 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) ; S h a r d a rv . As h c r o f t , 3 8 2 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . An a p p lic a n t m a ye s ta b lis h s u c h a f e a r b ys h o w in g p a s t p e rs e c u tio n , K ib in d a v . A tty G e n ., 477 F. 3d 113, 119 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , orbys how i ng a s ubj ect i ve fe arof futur e per s ecut i on an d an o b

jecti v elyrea so n ab le po ssibil ityo f su ff ering su ch p erse cu ti o n . C h u k w u v . A tt ’y G e n ., 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T o sh o w e lig ib ili tyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, A n m us tdemonstr at e a c l earpr obabi l i t ythatherl i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on acc ountof one of

t he pr ot ect ed gr ounds . 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) ; C hen v. G onzal es , 434A n i ncl udes hercl ai m underthe C A T i n t hi s appea l , butdoes notpr es entany 1 ar gum entr egar di ng t he B I A ’ s C A T det erm i nat i on. W e ther efor e cons i derthi s ar gum ent to b e w aive d . S ee L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he I J ’ s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, pur s uantt o t he R E A L I D A ct , w as m ade 2 “w ith o u t r eg ard to w h ethe r an inco n sist en cy , inac cu rac y , o r fa lseh o o d [w en t] to the h ea rt o f th e a p p li ca n t’ s claim . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ). 

### 6 F. 3d 212, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A n appl i cantw ho fai l s t o pr ove el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um “per for ce f

ai l s t o s how ent i t l ementt o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . ” See Chukw u, 484 F. 3d at 1 8 8 -89 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 1 W e re v ie w th e d e c is io n o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n a p p e a ls . S e e L i v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, w e a lso loo k to the d ec isi o n o f th e IJ w h ere t he B I A defe r s t o oradopt s t he I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctfors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and m u st u p h o ld its d e ter m in a tio n s “ u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). 2 A n ar gues t hatt her e w as no i ncons i s t encybetw een he rw r i t t en s t at ementthatt he N or t h K or ean w om an s t ay ed i n herhom e for“s ever al ” day s , hert es t i m onythatthe s t ay w a s 2 7 d a y s, a n d h e r h u sb a n d a n d u n c le’ s w ritten sta tem e n ts w h ich d e sc rib e d th e len g th o f ti m e a s a “ co u p le” o f d ay s. S h e a rgu es th at th e term s “se v era l” an d “a co u p le” a re open t o i nt erpr et at i on, and not es t hatthe s ame t r ans l at orpr epar ed s t at ement s forher hu sband and un cl e, and m ayhav e had a part i cularun derst and i ng of the t erm . A n als o ar gues t hatbeca us e s he w as car i ng forthe w om an, herhus band and unc l e had no pe r s onal

### 7

know l edge of

t he l ength of s t ay . A s t o herpr i ors t at ementthatthe s t ayhad bee n “s ever al ” day s , A n ar gues t hatt he t erm i s noti ncons i s t entw i t h 27 day s , and thatt o t he ext ent“s ever al ” w as ambi guous , s he had be l i eved s he coul d be more s peci fi c dur i ng her h e a ri n g . A n a rg u e s th a t th e te s tim o n ys h e g a v e s h o w e d c o n f u s io n , n o t e v a s io n . A n al s o ar gues t hatt he B I A i m pr oper l yfound i ncons i s t encyr egar di ng her s t at ement s on t he fr equenc yof pol i ce vi s i t s t o herhom e. H ert es t i m onythatthe pol i ce i n i t i a l l yc a me e v e r yo t h e rwe e k , a n d th e n o n c e a mo n t h , a n d th e n “ s o me t i me s th e yc o me e v e rym o n th ” w a s f

o llo w e d b ytes tim o n yth a t so m e tim e s th e p o lice c a m e e v e rym o n th and s om et i m es t heys t opped fora fe w m ont hs . A n cont ends thatthe l at ers t at ement expl ai ned the i ni t i al s t at ement . A n al s o ar gues thatthe otheral l eged i ncons i s t enci es upon w hi ch the I J r el i ed w er e ade quat el yexpl ai ned. Speci fi cal l y , s he ar gues thatther e i s no r eal i ncons i s t encybetw een he rs t at ementthats he w as w ant ed fors m uggl i ng and her t es t i m onyt hats he w as harbor i ng a N or t h K or ean w om an, beca us e the fi r s ti nvol ves t he p e r c e p t i o n o f

h e ra n d t h e s e c o n d i n v o l v e s wh a ts h e p e r c e i v e d h e r s e l f t o b e d o i n g . An fur t heras s er t s t hatherhus band w as notof i nt er es tt o t he pol i ce be caus e he bl amed t he ent i r e eve nton her , as s he expl ai ned i n hert es t i m ony , and thatther e i s no i ncons i s t encyas h e r h u s b a n d s im p ly d id n o t m e n tio n th is in h is le tte r. T he governm entar gues t hatt he r ecor d evi dence does notcompel the conc l us i on t hatA n w as cr edi bl e, and thatt her efor e w e ar e bound t o aff i r m . T he governm ents t at es t hatt he i ncons i s t encybetw een the t erm s “a c oupl e, ” “s ever al , ” and the pr eci s e number27S e e M e rria m -W e b ste r’s O n lin e D ictio n a ry(d e f in in g “ se v e ra l” a s a ltern a tiv e ly 3 “more t han one, ” “mor e than tw o butfew erthan many , ” and “ bei ng a gr eatm any , ” but defi ni ng “coupl e” a s “an i ndefi ni t e s m al l num ber ”) , avai l abl e at h ttp ://w w w .m e rr ia m -w e b s te r.c o m /d ic tio n a ry. 

### 8 w oul d al one al l ow foran adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, butal s o r el i es on c o n tr a d ic to ry te s tim o n yre g a rd in g th e f re q u e n c yo f

p o lic e v is its re lie d u p o n b yth e B IA . T he governm ental s o poi nt s outt he addi t i onal i ncons i s t enci es not ed bythe I J , s uch as w hetherA n w as i n t r oubl e fors m uggl i ng orforharbor i ng a N or t h K or ean w om an, her t es t i m onyas t o w hyt he pol i ce w er e noti nt er es t ed i n herhus band, and w hen and how t he pol i ce di s cover ed the book thatA n s entherhus band. W e agr ee w i t h t he governm ent . T he r ecor d befor e us m ayw el l have s uppor t ed an al t ernat i ve fi ndi ng, i f thathad bee n t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on. H ow ever , w e ca nnots ayt hat anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude thatA n w as cr edi bl e. See A rk a n s a s v . O k la h o m a , 5 0 3 U .S . 9 1 , 1 1 3 (1 9 9 2 ); s e e a ls o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). Subst ant i al evi dence i s “s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on, ” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483 ( 3d C i r . 2001) (c ita tio n o m itte d ), a n d s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e e x is ts to s u p p o rt th e d e te rm in a tio n b e lo w . A l t hough t he t erm s “s ever al ” and “ a coupl e” both can r el at e t o s m al l num ber s , a t erm of 2 7 d ay s is qu it e d iffe ren t, an d thu s the IJ co u ld rea so n ab lyh av e d eterm ined that A n ’s t es t i m onyw as i ncons i s t entand ther efor e notcr edi bl e. H ert es t i m onyr egar di ng the 3 fre q u en cyo f p o li ce v isi ts i s at th e v eryleast i m p rec ise, an d in co n jun cti o n w ith the IJ’s

### 9

co n ce rn th at he r hu sb an d ’s l ett er d id n o t m en ti o n co n ti n u ing v isi ts, also su p p o rt s the IJ’s co n clus ion as to cre d ibil ity . T h is ev iden ce h igh li g h ted b ythe B IA , w h en take n in co n ce rt w i t h t he I J ’ s ot herconce r ns , s uffi ci ent l ys uppor t s the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. B ecause o f t he ad verse cr edibi l i t yfi nd i ng s, A n is thu s unab l e t o d em on strat e past per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, as r equi r ed forthe gr antof as y l um . I n addi t i on, beca us e A n di d nots at i s fythe s t andar d foras y l um , s he ca nnot s at i s fyt he hi ghers t andar d of pr oof forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . J anus i ak v. I N S, 947 F . 2 d 4 6 , 4 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). Wh i l e we a r e s ymp a t h e t i c t o t h e s i tu a t i o n o f s o me o n e i n th e p o s i t i o n i n wh i c h An c l a i m s t o f

i n d h e r s e l f

, a n d r e c o g n i z e th e d i f

f i c u l t i e s i n u s e o f

p r e c i s e l a n g u a g e b y a p erso n w h o se n ati v e lan g u ag e is n o t E n g li sh , o r i n sp ea k ing thro u g h a tran slat o r, w e a re b o u n d b ythe c red ibil ityfin d ing s b elow an d the re q u ir ed stan d ard o f re v iew . T h e B o ard l ooked ca r eful l yatt he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs and conc l uded thattheyw er e s uppor t ed. 

### I I I . CONCLUSI ON F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we d e n yAn ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.