2009 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 12-3-2009 

# Zhu 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 . 08-3084

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 " Zhu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 156. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/156NOT 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- 3084

___________ L I F ANG Z HU, P eti ti o n er. v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

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 200- 125- 569) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam K . M ill s

______________________________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on A ugus t26, 2009 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

( O pi ni on fi l ed D ece m ber3, 2009)

__________ O P I N I O N P E R C U R I A M: P eti ti o n er L i Fa n g Z h u , a n ati v e a n d cit izen o f th e F u ji an P rov ince , P eo p le’s R epubl i c of Chi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutpos s es s i ng a val i d vi s a, i dent i ty , or e n tr yd o c u m e n t in 2 0 0 5 , a n d w a s p la c e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s f o r t h a t r e a s o n .T he I J m i s s t at ed how the pr es um pt i on forfutur e per s ecut i on w or ks i n the ca s e of 1 a n a l i e n wh o d e mo n s tr a t e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n i n th e f o r m o f c o e r c e d a b o r t i o n . T h e BI A, ho w ever, no t ed the corr ectl aw and res olved t he case o n o ther groun ds. 2 Subse quent l y , s he appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Z hu cl ai m s thathervi l l age’ s fami l ypl anni ng comm i t t ee f

or ced he rt o have a n abort i on i n ear l y2004 beca us e s he w as pr egnantand unm arr i ed. She al s o cl ai m s thats he s t art ed pr act i ci ng Fal un G ong s hor t l yaft erher abort i on. She as s ert s thati f s he i s r eturned, s he w i l l be per s ecut ed as a mem berof the Fal un G ong and s he w i l l be s ubj ect ed t o for ced s t er i l i zat i on underC hi na’ s coer ci ve f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic yb e c a u s e s h e is n o w m a rr ie d w ith a n A m e ri c a n -b o rn s o n . A fter a h ea ri n g at w h ich Z h u test ifi ed , the IJ d en ied re li ef , co n clud ing that Z h u ’s t es t i m onyw as i ncr edi bl e and that , i n anyevent , i tl acke d corr obor at i on. ( A . R . 53) . T he I J char act er i zed a s “unequi vocal ” Zhu’s t es t i m onythats he had no i nt ent i on of l eavi ng C h in a u n til a u th o ri tie s s o u g h t to a rr e s t h e r f o r p ra c tic in g F a lu n G o n g . (I d . a t 4 8 ). A ccor di ng t o t he I J , thi s “unequi vocal ” t es t i m onycontr adi ct ed Zhu’s as s ert i on thather ab o rt ion w as “ fo rce d ” a n d reb u tt ed an yp resu m p ti o n o f a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on bas ed on an a l l eged f or ced a bor t i on. ( I d. ) . T he I J al s o found that , al though 1 Z hu’ s w r i t t en s t at ementand or al t es t i m onyw er e es s ent i al l ythe s ame, both l acke d s uffi ci entdet ai l t o m ake he ral l egat i on of a “ for ced” abort i on pl aus i bl e. ( I d. at49) . T he I J di d notbel i eve Zhu’ s “s i m pl e” t es t i m onythatherm otheragr eed t o l etherhave the chi l d outof w edl ock. ( I d. at49- 50) . T he I J found thatZ hu fai l ed t o expl ai n w hys he3

w ant ed t o be a s i ngl e, unw ed mot heri n a cons ervat i ve cul tur e l i ke C hi na’ s and w hyher m o ther sim p lyag ree d to let her h av e the ch il d . (Id.) . T h e IJ f o u n d fa u ltw ith h er f

ail u re to p ro v id e c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e , su c h a s a lette r o r a f f id a v it fro m h e r m o th e r, w ith w hom Z hu had bee n i n t ouch byphone j us tbefor e the hea r i ng, orauthent i cat ed medi cal r ecor ds i ndi cat i ng thats he had ha d an abort i on i n C hi na i n 2004. I d. at50. T he I J concl uded thatZ hu’ s t es t i m onyaboutheri nvol vementi n the Fal un G ong w as i ncr edi bl e. T he I J not ed thatZ hu di s pl ay ed gene r al l yunr emar kabl e know l edge a bout the p rac ti ce o f F alun G o n g . (Id. at 51 ). B ec au se Z h u ’s t esti m o n yw as to o g en era l, the IJ lo o k e d to th e p re s e n c e o f a n yc o rr o b o ra tin g e v id e n c e a n d f o u n d n o n e . (I d . a t 5 1 -5 2 ). A l tho ug h Z hu t est i fi ed that , i n A pri l 20 07 , she had l earned from her m otherthat C hinese author i t i es w er e s t i l l l ooki ng forher , Z hu fai l ed t o s ubm i tan af fi davi torl ett erfr om her m otherconfi r m i ng Z hu’ s t es t i m ony . ( I d. at51) . T he I J r ej ect ed Zhu’s excus e thather m otherw as i l l i t er at e. ( I d. at51- 52) . T he I J al s o faul t ed Zhu forfai l i ng t o pr ovi de aff i davi t s ort es t i m onyfr om herhus band orPhi l adel phi a r el at i ves w i th w hom s he l i ved b ef o re sh e g o t m arried w h o co u ld co n firm h er p rac ti ce o f F alun G o n g . (Id. at 52 ). T h e IJ d eterm ined that Z h u fa il ed to es tablish a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture h arm underC hi na’ s r es tr i ct i ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es bas ed on the bi r th of hers on, abs ent e v id e n c e sh o w in g th a t m a rrie d p e o p le w ith o n e f o re ig n -b o rn c h ild w o u ld b e su b jec ted to for ced s t er i l i zat i on underC hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng l aw s . ( I d. at52) . T he I J found that curr entC hi nes e l aw , codi fi ed i n 2002, out l aw ed coe r ci ve meas ur es s uch as s t er i l i zat i on4

and abort i on, r epl aci ng them w i th s oci al compensa t i on fee s , orfi nes ( cal cul at ed a c c o rd in g to d is p o s a b le in c o m e ), a s th e p ri m a ry m e a n s f o r e n f o rc in g th e o n e -c h ild p o lic y . ( I d. ) . B as ed on herfi ndi ngs , the I J concl uded thatZ hu fai l ed t o s how thats ubm i t t i ng t o a sy ste m o f

so c ial c o m p e n sa tio n w o u ld b e so b u rd e n so m e to Z h u a s to a m o u n t to “per s ecut i on” underthe l aw . ( I d. at52- 53) . T he I J al s o found thatZ hu’ s fea rof s t er i l i zat i on aft erhavi ng a s econd c hi l d w as s pecul at i ve as s he onl yhad one c hi l d. ( I d. at 5 3 ). Z hu appea l ed, s ubm i t t i ng new evi dence , an af fi davi tfr om herm otherand medi cal r ecor ds fr om T empl e H os pi t al ( w her e s he r ece i ved pr enat al car e) . I n J une 2008, the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s ed the appe al . A s t o the mer i t s of her a sy lu m c laim , the B IA d id n o t re lyo n th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g a s th e B o a rd d id notacc eptherconcl us i on thati tw as i m pl aus i bl e thatan unmar r i ed w om an w oul d deci de t o keep he rchi l d i n C hi na. ( A . R . 3) . T he B I A agr eed, how ever , thatZ hu fai l ed t o s how byr eas onabl yavai l abl e evi dence ( s uch as aff i davi t s and medi cal r ecor ds ) thats he had a for ced a bor t i on i n C hi na i n 2004, and thats he w as a pr act i ci ng m emberof the Fal un G o n g . (Id.) . T h e B IA also rejected Z h u ’s claim o f a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on beca us e s he fa i l ed t o s how thats he w oul d be s ubj ectt o m or e than s oci al c o m p e n sa tio n , su c h a s f in e s o r lo ss o f

g o v e rn m e n t b e n e f

its, if s h e v io late d th e f

a m ily p lann ing p o li cy . (Id.) . T h e B IA c o n stru e d Z h u ’s s u b m iss io n o f c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e a s a m o tio n to5

r emand and deni ed i t , r ej ect i ng the af fi davi tfr om Z hu’ s m otherand the medi cal r ecor ds becau se theyw ere r easona blyavail able t o Z hu pri or t o h er heari ng . (I d. ). T he B IA al so ru led th a t th e e v id e n c e w o u ld n o t ch a n g e th e re su lt i n Z h u ’s c a se , in a n ye v e n t, be c a u se it w oul d be ent i t l ed t o l i t t l e, i f any , w ei ght . ( I d. ) . T he B I A not ed thatZ hu’ s m otherw as not avai l abl e forcr os s - exami nat i on on heraff i davi tand thatthe medi cal r ecor d det ai l i ng t he n u m b er o f p reg n an cies a n d ab o rt ion s h ad b ee n alt ere d . (Id.) . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . See B r i s eno- Fl or es v. A t t orneyG ener al , 492 F. 3d 226, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W her e, as h e re , th e B IA is s u e s a d e c is io n o n th e m e ri ts , w e re v ie w th e B IA ’s , n o t th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . L i v. A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e B IA is bo u n d b ythe IJ’s f a c tu a l d e t e r mi n a t i o n s “ i n c l u d i n g f i n d i n g s a s t o th e c r e d i b i l i tyo f t e s t i mo n y ” a n d r e v i e ws th e s e f in d in g s o n ly to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e ya re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i ) . “The B I A ’ s concl us i ons r egar di ng evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on and the w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on ar e fi ndi ngs of fa ct , ” w hi ch w e r evi ew underthe defe r ent i al s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r. 20 06 ). U nd er the d eferent i al subst anti al evidence st and ard, the B IA ’s fi nd i ng s “m ust be uphel d unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 484 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , the pet i t i on w i l l be deni ed. I n herpet i t i on forr evi ew , Z hu as s ert s thatthe I J and B I A err ed i n fi ndi ng thats heA r guabl y , the G overnm enti s corr ecti n as s ert i ng thatZ hu w ai ved herappea l of 2 the B oar d’ s fi ndi ng thats he fa i l ed t o corr obor at e hercl ai m beca us e s he fa i l ed t o i ncl ude suffici ent ar gu m ent i n h er br i ef. W e w i l l exerci se our di scr et i on , ho w ever, and add res s the m erit s o f th e c lai m . S ee e.g., B u ll o ck v . D resse l, 4 3 5 F . 3 d 2 9 4 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 6 fai l ed t o s how byr eas onabl yavai l abl e evi dence thats he s uffe r ed a f or ced a bor t i on and th a t sh e w a s a F a lu n G o n g p ra c tit io n e r. A s th e G o v e rn m e n t co rre c tlysta ted in its 2 r es pons e br i ef, thi s cas e conc erns the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , notcr edi bi l i ty , as the B I A di d notaff

i r m the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. See K ay embe v. A s hcr oft , 334 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A s w e h av e p rev iou slyac k n o w ledg ed , the IJ m ayreq u ir e corr obor at i ng document at i on even w her e an appl i canti s cr edi bl e, and s uch corr obor at i on i s r equi r ed “w her e i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec ts uch pr oof fr om a w i tnes s and ther e i s no sati sfa ctoryex p lana ti o n fo r i ts ab sen ce . ” O b ale v . A tty . G en . , 4 5 3 F . 3 d 1 5 1 , 1 6 3 (3d C ir . 2006) . T he B I A ’ s hol di ng thatZ hu fai l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on foras y l um p u rp o se s is su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . Z h u f a iled to p re se n t re a so n a b lya v a ilab le evi dence of herfor ced a bor t i on i n the form of authent i cat ed medi cal r ecor ds fr om C hi na oraff i davi t s . See C hen v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 212, 221- 22 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng that p e tit io n e r f

a iled to p ro v id e re a so n a b lya v a ilab le e v id e n c e , inc lu d in g m e d ica l re c o rd s, to su p p o rt h e r f

o rc e d a b o rtio n c laim ). N o r d id Z h u p ro v id e a n yre a so n a b lya v a ilab le affidavi t (s ) s ho w i ng that s he p ract i ced F al un G on g. S ub st anti al recor d ev i den ce al so s uppor t s the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on thatZ hu fai l ed t o demonstr at e a w el l - founded f earof f u tu r e h a r m d u e t o th e b i r th o f h e rs o n i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s b e c a u s e s h e h a s n o ts h o wn7

thats he w oul d be s ubj ect ed t o m or e than fi nes and l os s of bene fi t s i f s he vi ol at es the onechi l d rul e upon herr eturn t o C hi na. B as ed on the r ecor d, the B I A ’ s deni al of Zhu’s as y l um appl i cat i on i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e ca nnots aythatanyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o c o n c l u d e t o th e c o n tr a r y. B e c a u se Z h u f

a iled to sa tisf

yth e lo w e r b u rd e n o f

p ro o f re q u ire d f

o r a sy lu m , sh e is nece s s ar i l yi nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . See I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on S erv ices v . C ard o za -F o n sec a, 48 0 U . S . 4 2 1 , 4 3 0 -32 (19 8 7 ). M o reo v er, th e B IA det erm i ned thatZ hu di d notm eetherbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not th a ts h e wi l l b e t o r tu r e d u p o n h e rr e tu rn t o Ch i n a , 8 C. F . R. § § 2 0 8 . 1 6 , 2 0 8 . 1 8 , a n d we concl ude thatthe r ecor d does notcompel a di ffe r entconcl us i on. Fi nal l y , the B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng Z hu’ s r eques tt o r emand th e m a tter to th e IJ f

o r c o n sid e ra tio n o f

Z h u ’s b e late d p ro f

f e r o f T e m p le U n iv e rsity H os pi t al m edi cal r ecor ds and an a ffi davi tfr om herm other . See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 170 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( s t andar d of r evi ew ) . T he document s w er e not“new ” as both w er e r eas onabl yavai l abl e t o Z hu pr i ort o herr emoval hear i ng. W e not e thatthe m e d ica l re c o rd s m e re lyd e taile d th e n u m b e r o f p re g n a n c ies a n d a b o rtio n s Z h u h a d b u t d id noti ndi cat e w her e s he had a n abort i on ( i n C hi na ori n the U ni t ed St at es ) orw hethers he had r eport ed thatthe abort i on( s ) w er e coe r ced. 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.