FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 24, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1593 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N o. A 96- 440- 085 SAIQING CHIN, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ P et iti on f

or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 24, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Sa iqi ng C hinpe tit ion s f

or r ev ie wof

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ or de r af fi rm ing the I m

m igr at ionJud ge ’ s ( “ IJ ”) de ci sio n de ny ing he r pe tit ionf orBe cause Chin’s removal proc eeding s commence d afte r April 1, 1997, the 1 eff ective da te of the I lleg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996) (“ I I RI RA”), this ca se is g overne d by the perma nent provisions of the I

NA, as a mended by

I I RI RA. 2 asy lum and withholdi ng of rem oval und er the I m m igration Nationality

Ac t (“ IN A ”) and the U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, Inhum ane, and Degra ding Tr eatm ent or Punishm ent (“ CAT ”). Substantial 1 ev ide nc e supp orts the I J’ s de te rm inatio n th at Ch in f ai le d to de m onstrate e lig ibi lity fo r as y lu m

or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . Accor di ng ly, Ch in ’s pet it io n i s DENIED.

I. Background Ch in w as bor

n in198 2 inF uz hou Ci ty , Ch ina . S he te sti fi ed that i n Apr il 2001 , he r pare nts bor

ro w ed appr oxi m at el y

$10 , 000 fr om

aloc al of

fi ci al in or de r to ope n a bus ine ss. T he bus ine ss f ai le d, and C hin ’ s pare nts w er e una ble to re pay

the de bt. C hinte sti fi ed

that the of

fi ci al of fe re d to f or giv e the de bt i f Ch in m ar ri ed his son. Chin objecte d to the propo sal, both because she did not want to be a “ piece of m er ch an dis e” and b ec au se the of fi ci al ’ s so n w as “ m en ta lly r et ar de d. ” D es pit e Ch in’ s ob j ec tio ns, he r pare nts a cc ep te d th e of fi ci al ’ s of fe r an d arr an ge d th e m arria ge. In April 2002, Chin ran aw ay from her pare nts to th e hom e of another re la tiv e. A ft er

about aw ee k, he r m oth er , a cc om panie d by f our vil la ge c adre s,3

cam e and took her hom e. Chin ran aw ay again in June 20 02, this tim e to her sister’ s hom e in Fuzcheng City . She stay ed there f or about two we eks, until her m oth er se nt the c adre s to take he r hom e ag ai n. Ch in r anaw ay

to the c ity

of Q uanz hou in S ep te m

be r 2002 . S he r en te d a ro om and f ound w ork w iththe he lp o f a sm uggl er , kno w n a s a“ snake he ad . ” S he rem ained in Quanzhou for three m onth s. S he testified that her pare nts bo rrow ed $25,000 to pay

half of the snakehead’ s fee f or sm uggl ing Chin to the United St at es , and tha t the r em ai nde r of the f ee w oul d be pa id o ve r tim e, in part f ro m m oni es that C hine ar

ne d w orkin g inthe U nit ed S ta te s. Upon le av ing Q uanz hou, Ch in trave le d f ir st t o T ha iland. S he stay ed in Tha il an d fo r ab ou t t hr ee m on th s, t he n fl ew to Nepa l, wh ere s he st ay edfora week . Fr om N ep al , she f

le wto In dia , w he re she stay ed f or anothe r w ee k be fo re f

ly ing to Germ an y , cha ng in g p la ne s an d h ead in g t o At la nt a. O nc e in A tlanta , Ch in atte m pte d to e nte r the U nit ed

S ta te s un de r a vis a wa iver pilot prog ram

using a Singapore passport that was not her ow n. When im m igr at ionauth or iti es in A tlanta que sti one d C hinabout

the pa ssp ort, she adm itt ed that sh e w as ar es ide nt o f Ch ina and s ta te d th at

she w ish ed

to fi le f or as y lu m . O n Apr il 24, 200 3, Ch in s ubm itt ed he r ap pli catio n f

or a sy lum and4

w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, c iti ng p as t pe rs ec uti on and a f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on b y lo cal off ic ia ls on acco un t o f he r po li ti cal op in io n a ga in st arra ng edm arri ag es . At he r he ar ing , Ch in a

rg ue d th at

the loc al of

fi ci al s ha d pe rs ec ute d he r by a tte m pti ng to f or ce he r int o an arr an ge d m ar ri ag e an d by

r et ur nin g he r to h er

f am ily w he n sh e ran aw ay . S he a lso c la im ed that sh e fe ar ed

f uture pe rs ec uti on b ec au se he r fam ily ow ed asub stanti al a m ount

of m one y and s he tho ught

she m igh t be f

or ce d to go through with the ar

ranged m arria ge. Finally , she c laim ed that she would face t o rtu r e i f r e tu rn e dt o C h i n ab e c au s e s h e l e f tth e c o u n t ry i l l e g a l l y. T he I J de nie d C hin ’ s pe tit ion , f ind ing that C hin ’ s c la im

w as pe rs ona l i n na tur e an d th at

she w as an e co nom ic r athe r than po lit ic al r ef uge e. T he I J a lso fo und Ch in’ s st or

y r eg ar din g he r pare nts ’ de bt and r es ult ing a gr ee m en t t o th e ar range d m ar

ri ag e “ hig hly

sus pe ct ” in l igh t of

the pare nts ’ abil ity

and w ill ing ne ss to obt ain the funds to pay the snakehead. T he IJ w ent on to h old th at, even if her cl ai m s w er e ac ce pte d a s tr ue , Ch in c oul d no t e sta

bli sh r ef uge e status und er

the IN A be ca use she c oul d no t e sta

bli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of fu tur e pe rs ec uti on. F ina lly , the I J he ld tha t C hindid not qua lif y f or w ith hol din g of re m ova l un de r the CA T be ca use Ch in c oul d no t de m onstrate that sh e w as li ke ly to be pe rs ec ute d or

tor tur ed upo n be ing r et

ur ne d to Ch ina . I n su

ppor t of thi s ho ldi ng, the I J no te d th at

f ir st- tim e re tur

ne es to Ch ina

ge ne ra lly suf fe r onl y af ine . T he5

Board of Im

m igration Appeals affir

m ed the IJ’ s decision withou t issuin g an opi nio n. II. D isc us sio n A. Standard of Re view The I J’ s factual deter

m ination s are r eviewe d und er the substantial evidence test, and w e “ m

ust affirm the [IJ] ’ s decision if it is su pported byrea sonable, subs tanti al , and p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d a s aw hol e. ” N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F.3d 126 2, 1283-84 (11t h Cir. 2001 ) (internal quotation om itted). I n other w or ds, w e re ve rs e the a ge nc y ’ s de ci sio n on ly if “ the e vid en ce pr es en te d by [ the pe tit ion er ] w as suc h th at

ar ea sona

ble f ac tf ind er w oul d have to co nc lud e that the re qui sit e fe ar

of pe rs ec uti on e xis te d. ” I . N . S. v. E lia s- Z ac hari as , 502 U . S. 478 , 48 1, 1 12 S. Ct. 8 12 , 81 5 (1 99 2) . Wh e n th e B o a r do f I mmi g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s a f

f i rms an IJ’ s order w ithou t opin ion, the IJ's dec ision constitu tes the final agency de te rm inatio n su

bj ec t t o r ev ie wby

thi s c ourt. F or gue v. U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 401 F . 3d 1282 , 1285 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). B. A sy lum A n a lie n w ho arr ive s in , or is pr es en t i n, the U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or asy lum . IN A § 208(a)( 1), 8 U .S .C. § 1158 (a)( 1). The A ttorney Ge neral has discretion to g rant asy lum if the alien m eets the IN A’ s definition of a “ refugee. ” 86

U. S. C. § 115 8(b)(1). A“ refugee” is defined as any person who is outs ide any country of such person’ s nationalit y or, in the c as e of

ape rs on h av ing no n at ion al ity , is out sid e an y c ountry in w hic h su chpe rs on l as t ha bit ua lly r es ide d, and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or herself of the protec tion o f, that country because of per secution or a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, na tio na lity , m em

be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup , or political opi nio n. IN A § 10 1( a) (4 2) (A ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ) (e m pha sis a dde d) . T he a sy lum applicant carrie s the burden of provin g statuto ry “ refugee” status. Se e A l Na jj ar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. T o e sta bli sh a sy lum

e lig ibi lity , the pe tit ion er m ust , w ithspe ci fi c an d credible evidence, “ establish (1) past persecution o n account of her political opin ion or any

other protected ground, or (2) a ‘ we ll-founded fear’ that her polit ical opinio n or any

other protected ground will cause future perse cution.” Se pul ve dav. U . S. A tt’ y

G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 226, 123 0- 31 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . I f the pe tit ion er s de m onst

rate pa st p er se cu tio n, the y are pr es um ed

to ha ve aw el lfo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on unle ss the gov er nm en t c anr eb ut this pr es um pti on b y sho w ing af

undam en ta l c hange in ci rc um stanc es in the c ountry or the abil ity

to av oid f uture pe rs ec uti on b y

r el oc at ing w ith in the c ountry . A nti pova v. U . S. A tt’ y

G en . , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 126 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . I f the pe tit ion er s c an not7

show past persecution, then they m ust dem onstrate a w ell-founded fear of future pe rs ecu ti on th atis bo th su bjec ti ve ly gen ui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e. See Al N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 89. T he sub j ec tiv e co m

pone nt c anbe pr ove d “by the ap pli cant’ s c re dib le te sti m ony that he or

she ge nui ne ly

f ears pe rs ec uti on, ” w hil e the obj ec tiv e co m

pone nt “ can be f

ulf ill ed e ith er by e sta bli shi ng p as t pe rs ec uti on o r that he or she ha s agoo d r ea son to f ear fu tur e pe rs ec uti on. ” I d. ( int er na l qu otatio n om itted). A lthou gh the INAdoes not exp ressly define “persecution” for purposes o f qu a l i f yi n g a s a“r e f

u g e e , ” w e h a v e s t a t e dth a t“p e r s e c u t i o n i s an e x t r e me co nc ep t, r equir ing m or e than af ewiso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm en t or in ti m id at io n.” Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . In order to establish the necessary causal connection between the political opin ion and th e fe ared per secution, the petition er m ust present “ specific, detailed fa ct s sh ow ing agoo d r ea son to f ear that he or

she w ill be sin gle d ou t f

or pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of suc h an op ini on. ” Id . ( int er na l qu otatio n om itt ed ) (e m pha sis in or igi na l) . F urthe rm or e, w e ha ve appr ove d of a“ co untry -w ide re qui re m en t” in w hic h ar ef uge e m ust f ir st p ur sue an “ int er

na l r es ettle m en t alternative” in their ow n country , or establish th at this is no t poss ible, before se ek ing a sy lum

he re . Ma zari eg os v . O ff ic e of U . S. A tt’ y

G en . , 241 F . 3d 1 320, 1326 -27 (11th Cir. 2001). T hus, in additio n to establis hing a "w ell-founded fear"8

of pe rs ec uti on, the a lie n m

ust a lso e sta bli sh tha t the pe rs ec uti on c oul d no t be av oi de d b y

rel oc at in g wi th in th ei r co un try. Inthi s c as e, sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s f ind ing that C hindid

not suf fe r pa st p er se cu tio n ona cc ount of he r pol iti ca l op ini on. C hinse ts f orth o nly tw o in ci de nts in w hic h th e gove rn m en t a lle ge dly pe rs ec ute d he r, and b othof the se inc ide nts oc curr ed

w he n lo ca l of

fi ci al s, e ith er

a cc om panie d by he r m oth er

or ac tin g up on h er

m oth er ’ s r eque st, f

ound Ch in and t ook he r hom e af te r she ha d r

un aw ay to av oid an arr an ge d m ar

ri ag e. I t i s no t a t a ll cl ear that this c ondu ct r ise s to the le ve l of

pe rs ec uti on, nor

is the re any

e vid en ce of

ac au sa l l ink

be tw ee n th e co nduc t and any

pol iti ca l op ini on, r ea l or im put ed , on the part

of Ch in. Additionally , substantial evidence supp orts the IJ’ s finding that Chin failed to establish a w ell-founded fear of future persec ution . W e agre e w ith the IJ that Chin’ s claim ed fear of being force d to enter an arr anged m arria ge to satisfy her pare nts ’ $10 , 000 de bt i s un de rm ine d by the f ac t tha t he r pare nts w er e w ill ing and able to obtain $ 25,000 to help Chin reach the U nited States, and that even if that w er e not the c as e, it

is unl ike ly

that the Ch ine se gov er

nm en t w oul d f

or ce Ch in t o en t eran dre m ai n i n an arra n g ed m arri ag e i n o rd ert o s at i s fy h erp ar en t s ’ de b t . We also agree that Chin’ s concerns about the arranged m arria ge, e ven if legitim ate, are not li ke ly to pe rs ist c ountry -w ide . T his is part ic ularl y so g ive n C hin ’ s te sti m ony9

that she lived andworked unm olested in Quanzhou for three m onth s prior to her de pa rtu re fo r th e Uni te d S ta te s. W ithr es pe ct

to Ch in’ s c la im

that sh e w ill be pe rs ec ute d f or il le ga lly leaving China, the country reports cited in the IJ’ s opin ion prov ide subs tantial supp ort f or the I J’ s f ind ing that f

ir st t im e re tur

ne es to Ch ina

are ge ne ra lly

onl y subj ec te d to f

ine s, not pe rs ec uti on o r tortur e. B ec au se Ch in c an not de m onstrate pa st p er se cu tio n or

aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on, he r pe tit ionf or as y lum w as pr ope rl y

de nie d. B. W ithho lding of Rem oval An alien is entitled to withhold ing of rem oval und er the INAif she can showthat he r lif

e or f re ed om w oul d be thr eate ne d ona cc ount of he r ra ce , r el igi on, na ti on al it y , m em

be rs hi p i n a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. Sepulveda, 401 F. 3d at 123 2. When attem pting to m ake this sho wing, the a lien be ar s th e bur de n of

de m onstratin g th at

it is “ m or e lik el y

than no t” that sh e w ill be pe rs ec ute d or

tor tur ed upo n be ing r et

ur ne d to he r co untry . I d. B ec au se thi s is a m ore stringent standard, “ an applicant [who] is unable to m eet the ‘ we ll-founded fear ’ standard for asy lum . . . is generally

precluded from

qualify ing for either as y lum or w ith hol din g of

de porta tio n. ” I d. a t 12 32- 33 ( int er na l qu otatio n om itted). S ince Chin has failed to establish p ast persecution or a w ell-founded10

fe ar of pe rs ec uti on s uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t he r as y lum

c la im , a s di sc uss ed

above , it logically follows that she cannot establish eligibilit y for w ithho lding of rem oval un de r th e h ei gh te ne d s ta nd ardof t he INA and th e CAT. Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d, and h av ing c onsi de re d th e br ie fs of the part ie s, we di sc ern no rev ers ib le erro r. Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng , we den y th e p et it io n. PETI TI ON DENI ED.