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 5-21-2010 

# Fu C he n 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 . 09-3341

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 " Fu C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1288. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/12881 NOT 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- 3341

___________ F U C HE N, 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. 094- 917- 761) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

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

M ay19, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay21, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M. I .

P et i t i on er Fu C hen seeks r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’2

(“B IA ”) f

inal o rde r of

rem o v al. In it s o rde r, the B IA af firm ed the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s ( “I J ”) deci s i on t o denyC hen’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n . II . C hen, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n O ct ober 2 0 0 6 a n d wa s s u b s e q u e n t l yc h a r g e d wi t h r e mo v a b i l i t yp u r s u a n tt o I NA § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) . I n tu r n , Ch e n a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , a n d CA T p ro tec tio n , alle g in g th a t h e e x p e rie n c e d p a st p e rse c u tio n a n d f e a rs f u tu re p e rse c u tio n in C hi na bec aus e he i s a pr act i t i onerof Fal un G ong.

In Ju ly2 0 0 7 , fo ll o w ing an ad m inistrati v e h ea ri n g , the IJ d en ied C h en ’s appl i cat i on foras y l um , concl udi ng thatther e w er e s i gni fi cantunexpl ai ned i ncons i s t enci es b e tw e e n h is c re d ib le f

e a r i n te rv ie w a n d h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n a n d h e a ri n g te s tim o n y . S p ec ifi ca ll y , at his cre d ible fe ar interv iew , C h en told a n asy lum o ff icer, v ia an interpre ter, thathe w as arr es t ed i n 2006 ( s hor t l ybefor e he f l ed the countr y ) , forpos t i ng fl i er s w hi ch c o n tain e d in f

o rm a tio n a b o u t F a lu n G o n g . C h e n f u rth e r sta ted th a t h e h u n g th e f liers in excha nge form oneys o t hathe coul d pur chas e medi cat i on forhi s m other , notbeca us e he w as a s uppor t erof Fal un G ong. I n contr as t , C hen s t at ed i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on and t es t i fi ed bef

or e the I J t hathe hung the fl i er s i n 2006 beca us e he s uppor t ed Fal un G ong, notas a means t o m ake money . I n addi t i on, C hen t es t i fi ed athi s m er i t s hear i ng thathe had bee n as s aul t ed i n 2003 forhavi ng publ i cal l ys t at ed thatFal un G ong i s a “good thi ng. ”3

C hen di d notdi s cl os e thi s i nci dentdur i ng hi s cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew des pi t e havi ng been as ked byoffi ci al s i f he ha d everbeen a r r es t ed i n C hi na.

C hen appe al ed the I J ’ s rul i ng t o t he B I A and, i n J ul y2009, the B I A deni ed th e a p p e a l, fin d in g n o e rro r in th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyru lin g . C h e n f iled a tim e ly p e titio n f o r r e v ie w in th is C o u rt . III . T h is C o u rt h a s a u th o ri ty to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) . “[W ] hen the B I A bot h adopt s the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es forthe I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i t yt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both t he I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew fac tual f in d in g 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 . S e e B u tt v. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A n adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng m us tbe uphel d unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he c o n tr a ry.” B e ri s h a

j v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 8 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B )) .

B eca us e C hen fi l ed hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef a ft erthe ena ctm entof the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, t he B I A ’ s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ar e governed bythe A ct . See C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). U n d er the R E A L ID A ct, an IJ m aybas e hercr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on on obs ervat i ons of the appl i cant ’ s demeanor , t he p la u s ib ility o f

th e a p p lic a n t’ s s to ry, a n d o n th e c o n s is te n c yo f th e a p p lic a n t’ s s ta te m e n ts .4

S ee IN A § 2 0 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ); G ab u n iy a v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 6 3 F . 3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 2 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III .

C hen ar gues t hatt he i ncons i s t enci es betw een hi s cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew a n d h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n a n d tes tim o n ya re m in o r, an d th e re f o re in su f f icie n t to u p h o ld the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i t yas s es s m ent . ( Pet . B r . at17. ) W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hat i ncons i s t enci es betw een a n ai rpor ts t at ementand an a s y l um s eeke r ’ s t es t i m onybefor e an I J ar e nots uffi ci ent , s t andi ng al one, t o s uppor ta B I A fi ndi ng thata pet i t i onerw as not c re d ib le . 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 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In th is c a se , h o w e v e r, th e IJ d id n o t re lyo n a sta tem e n t tak e n a t th e a irp o rt, w h ich C h en w as n o t ask ed to p rov ide, bu t i n stead reli ed o n d iscrep an cies b etw ee n C h en ’s l at ercr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew and s t at ement s thathe made i n s uppor tof hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. T he r ecor d r evea l s t hatthe cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew w as a det ai l ed ques t i on and ans w ers es s i on w hi ch occ ur r ed w i t h a M andar i n i nt erpr et erpr es entand t ook pl ace s ever al w eeks aft erC hen arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es . W e conc l ude thatthe part i cul ar conce rns thatw e had i n Fi adj oe aboutan I J ’ s r el i ance on an ai rpor ts t at ementar e not pr es enti n t hi s cas e. See i d. ( “[A n ai rpor t ] i nt ervi ew i s l i kel yt o be hurr i ed; l anguage di ffi cul t i es ar i s e; t he r es ul t s m aybe i nacc ur at el yr ecor ded, and an a r r i vi ng al i en w ho has s uffe r ed abus e i n hi s hom e countr ym aybe r el uct antt o r evea l ful l i nform at i on i n hi s or h er f ir st m ee ti n g w ith the g o v ern m en t. ”)I n anyevent , t he R E A L I D A ctperm i t s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons bas ed on, i nt er 1 al i a, i ncons i s t enci es t hatdo notgo t o t he hea r tof the al i en’ s cl ai m . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ; C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F. 3d at189. W e have notappl i ed the R E A L 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 iden ti fied b ythe IJ re lat e to th e h ea rto f C h en ’s claim fo r reli ef , an d w o u ld thu s su p p o rt an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet 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 derw hether8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) i s cons i s t entw i t h due pr oces s . See W an g v . H o lder, 56 9 F . 3 d 5 3 1 , 5 3 8 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (can v assin g the p rov isi o n ).

Fur t herm or e, C hen fa i l ed t o adequa t el yexpl ai n t he i ncons i s t enci es betw een hi s s t at ement s , and, contr aryt o hi s as s ert i ons i n hi s br i ef, the i ncons i s t enci es ar e not m i nor . T he bas i s forC hen’ s as y l um appl i cat i on i s thathe expe r i ence d pas tper s ecut i on

1 and fe ar s futur e per s ecut i on beca us e he i s a pr act i t i onerof Fal un G ong. H ow ever , dur i ng hi s cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew , C hen t ol d offi ci al s thathe l eftC hi na bec aus e the pol i ce at tr i but ed Fal un G ong t o hi m forhavi ng hung fl i er s on t he s ubj ect , butthatthe r eas on he hung t he fl i er s w as t o m ake money . ( A . R . 283- 88. ) W e agr ee w i t h t he B I A thats uch an i n c o n s i s t e n c yg o e s t o t h e h e a r to f Ch e n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o rr e l i e f. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c lu d e th a t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e IJ ’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n .

B e c a u se C h e n d id n o t m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f a s to h is a sy lu m c laim , h is cl ai m forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval nece s s ar i l yfai l s , as does hi s cl ai m forpr ot ect i on under the C A T . See Y u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 513 F. 3d 346, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e w i l l denythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.



### 5