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 8-19-2010 

# Xiu-Y an 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 . 09-1647

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 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 " Xiu-Y an Zhu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 739. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/739I M G - 282 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- 1647

___________ XI U- YAN Z HU, 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 098- 715- 485) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

A ugus t18, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, V A N A SK I E and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t19, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM X i u- Y an Zhu see ks r evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . I n i t s or der , the B I A aff i r m ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i onZ hu m arr i ed af t erent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es and gave bi r th t o a daught eri n O ct ober 1 2006. 2 t o denyZ hu’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. Z hu i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. She arr i ved i n the U ni t e d St a t e s on ora bo utD e c e mber19 , 20 04 . O n Dec e mber23 , 20 04 , the U . S. D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e lan d S e c u rityiss u e d a N o tice to A p p e a r c h a rg in g h e r w ith re m o v a b ili tyu n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(A )(i). Z h u a d m itt e d th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in the N ot i ce a nd conce ded r emovabi l i ty . O n J anuary11, 2007, Z hu fi l ed an a m ended appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T , cl ai m i ng p a st p e rse c u tio n a n d f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n f

o r p ra c ticin g F a lu n G o n g , w h ich is o u tl aw ed in C h ina. S h e a lso c lai m ed that sh e f ea rs pe rsec u ti o n fo r vio lat ing the c o u n try ’s f a m i l y p l a n n i n g p o l i c y. 1 T he IJ denied Z hu ’s app l i cat i on for r el i ef, fi nd i ng Z hu ’s t est i m on ythat s he is a p ra c tit io n e r o f

F a lu n G o n g lac k e d c re d ib ili ty . T h e IJ n o ted th a t Z h u w a s u n c o m f o rta b le a n sw e rin g q u e stio n s a b o u t th e d isc ip lin e a n d a p p e a re d to k n o w little a b o u t it . W ith r egar d t o corr obor at i ng evi dence , w hi l e Zhu’s hus band t es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng thathe w i tnes s ed hi s w i fe pr act i ce Fal un G ong r egul ar l y , the I J found hi s t es t i m ony u n p ersu asiv e. T h e IJ a lso d eterm ined that Z h u fa il ed to p rov ide a d eq u ate d o cu m en tary e v id e n c e su b sta n tiatin g h e r f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n f

o r h a v in g v io late d C h in a ’s f a m ilyB eca us e Zhu fi l ed heras y l um appl i cat i on aft erM ay11, 2005, the pr ovi s i ons of the 2 R E A L I D A ctgoverni ng cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons i n as y l um appl i cat i ons appl y . See Ch u k wu v . At t ’ yGe n . o f th e U. S . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . Un d e rth e RE AL I D A ct , a tr i erof fa ctm aybas e a c r edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on on i ncons i s t enci es , i nher ent im p lau sib ili ties , ina c c u ra c ies , an d o th e r f a c to rs, w ith o u t re g a rd to w h e th e r th e yre late to the h ea rto f a n ap p li ca n t’ s claim . S ee IN A § 2 0 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ). 3 p l a n n i n g p o l i c y. O n F eb rua ry1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , the B IA af firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n an d d ism issed Z h u ’s appea l . T he B I A r evi ew ed onl ythe I J ’ s deni al of Zhu’s Fal un G ong cl ai m , det erm i ni ng thats he w ai ved r evi ew of heraddi t i onal cl ai m thats he w oul d be per s ecut ed underthe C h i n e s e f

a m i l y p l a n n i n g p o l i c y. II . 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 both 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 tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he B I A ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons ar e uphel d i f theyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . W e r evi ew an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . U nderthi s defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , thi s C our tm us tuphol d a cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on unl es s “any re 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 c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tra ry .” G a o v .A sh c ro f t, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o ti n g IN A § 2 4 2 (b)(4 )(B )). 2A l though Z hu des cr i bes the I J ’ s eval uat i on of hert es t i m onyas m os t l yan eva l uat i on 3 of herdemeanor , forr eas ons di s cus s ed her ei n, the r ecor d s how s thathi s eval uat i on encompas s ed more than Zhu’s i nabi l i tyt o ans w erques t i ons qui ckl y , not i ng thats he di s pl ay ed an ove r al l l ack of know l edge a boutthe di s ci pl i ne.

4 W e conc l ude thatthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i n thi s cas e i s s uppor t ed by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a s th e h e a r i n g tr a n s c r i p ts h o ws th a tZh u h a d a d i f f i c u l tt i me p rov iding d etail s ab o u t her p rac ti ce o f F alun G o n g . W e a g ree w ith the IJ’s a n d B IA ’s obs ervat i ons thatZ hu w as oft en non- r es pons i ve w hen as ked t o des cr i be w hatthe pr act i ce ent ai l ed. A tot hert i m es , herans w er s w er e del ay ed. Speci fi cal l y , the hea r i ng tr ans cr i pt re v e a ls th a t w h ile Z h u k n e w c e rta in c u rso ryin f o rm a tio n a b o u t F a lu n G o n g su c h a s its founder , s he coul d notadequa t el ydes cr i be keyel ement s of the di s ci pl i ne, i ncl udi ng t he m ovement s as s oci at ed w i th m edi t at i on. ( A . R . 107- 8; 115- 16) . A l though appl i cant s for 3 a s y lu m n e e d n o t d is p la y“ th e k n o w le d g e o f a s e m in a ri a n ,” s e e M e z v ri s h v ili v . A tt'yG e n ., 4 6 7 F .3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), w e a g re e th a t Z h u ’s in a b ili tyto d e sc rib e b a sic el ement s of herpr act i ce unde r m i nes hercl ai m thats he has been r egul arpr act i t i onerof the d is c ip lin e s in c e A p ri l 2 0 0 3 . (A .R . 9 1 ). T he B I A al s o uphel d t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyrul i ng bas ed on Zhu’s i ncons i s t ent s t at ement s r egar di ng heral l eged Sept ember2004 arr es tforpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong. ( I d. at 2 .) A lth o u g h p e rh a p s le ss sig n if ica n t to th e e v a lu a tio n o f h e r c re d ib ili tyth a n h e r in a b ili ty to a d e q u a telye x p lain h e r p ra c tice o f F a lu n G o n g , w e f

in d th a t th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on i s s uppor t ed by“r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the re c o rd c o n s id e re d a s a w h o le .” G a o , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 7 2 .B eca us e Zhu has pr ovi ded no ar gum enti n heropeni ng br i ef c hal l engi ng ei therthe 4 B I A ’ s deni al of herC A T cl ai m ori t s fi ndi ng thats he w ai ved r evi ew of hercl ai m thats he w ou l d b e persecut ed u nd er C hina’ s fam i l yplanni ng po l i cy , w e w i l l no trevi ew tho se claim s. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . P elullo, 39 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 5 W e a lso f

in d n o e rro r in th e c o n c lu sio n s o f th e IJ a n d B IA th a t Z h u f a iled to p rov ide s u ff

ici en t corro b o rati n g ev iden ce o f h er o n g o ing p rac ti ce o f F alun G o n g . In deny i ng as y l um bas ed on a l ack of corr obor at i on, the B I A and/ orI J m us t : ( 1) i dent i fyt he fac t s forw hi ch i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec tcorr obor at i on; ( 2) i nqui r e as t o w hetherthe appl i canthas pr ovi ded i nform at i on corr obor at i ng the r el evantfac t s ; and, i f he ors he has n o t; an d (3 ) a n a ly z e o f

w h e th e r th e a p p lica n t h a s a d e q u a telye x p lain e d h is o r h e r f a ilu re to do s o. T our e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he I J r eas onabl yexpec t ed Zhu t o s ubm i taff i davi t s ors om e evi dence thats he has p ra c tice d F a lu n G o n g sin c e h e r a rriv a l in th e U n ited S tate s. H o w e v e r, Z h u p re se n ted o n ly the t es t i m onyof herhus band t o s uppor tthe cl ai m . H e w as nota part i cul ar l yhel pful w i tnes s . W hi l e he c l ai m ed thatZ hu pr act i ces Fal un G ong thr ee orfourt i m es a w eek, he c o u ld n o t o f

f e r a n yd e tails a b o u t h is w if e ’s p ra c tice . (A .R . 1 2 0 -2 1 .) T h e B IA re a so n a b ly agr eed thatthi s l ack of

corr obor at i ng evi dence fai l ed t o s at i s fyZ hu’ s bur den of pr oof. A s Z hu di d notm eetherbur den of pr oof on heras y l um cl ai m , hercl ai m for w i thhol di ng of r emoval nece s s ar i l yfai l s . See Y u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 513 F. 3d 346, 349 ( 3d 4 Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . 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.