2005 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 11-1-2005 

# Y ang 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 . 04-4003

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Y an g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 283. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/283NOT 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. 04- 4003

____________ F E NG L I N YANG , 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 fr om an 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 71 824 203)

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

O ct ober27, 2005 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F IS H E R a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: N ovember1, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O t herC ruel , I nhum an or 1 D egr adi ng T r eatm entorPuni s hm ent , D ece m ber10, 1984, 1465 U . N . T . S. 85. O n M ar ch 1, 2003, t he I N S ceas ed t o exi s t , and i t s i nt er i orenfor cementfunct i ons 2 w er e tr ans ferr ed t o t he B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement , w i t hi n t he D e p a rt m e n t o f

H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty. See H om el and Secur i t yA ct , Pub. L . N o. 107- 296, § 441, 116 St at . 2135, 2192 ( 2002) . Forpurpos es of thi s opi ni on, the age ncyw i l l be r e fe r r e d t o a s t he I N S. 2 F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Feng L i n Y ang ( “Y ang”) , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, pet i t i ons thi s C our tfor r evi ew of a f

i 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 d e c i s i o n o f

t h e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) d e n y i n g Ya n g ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). 1 W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252 and w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. A s w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryforour an aly sis. Y an g en tered the U n it ed S tat es in 1 9 9 2 , w h en the U n it ed S tat es C o ast G u ard r es cued hi m and otheral i ens fr om a s i nki ng boatoff the coa s tof C al i forni a. A n offi cerof t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) i nt ervi ew ed Y ang thr ough an 2 in terp re ter . Y a n g to ld th e o f f ice r th a t h e h a d b e e n sm u g g led o u t o f C h in a a n d w ish e d to ent ert he U ni t ed St at es “t o earn s om e money. . . t o s uppor thi s fami l y , ” w ho had r emai ned i n C hi na. H e di d notm ent i on a fe arof per s ecut i on and s t at ed thathe w as not “w ant ed” i n C hi na “byt he pol i ce oranyot hergovernm entagenc y . ”C o n g re ss late r a m e n d e d th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liza tio n A c t to c o d if yth is 3 p o s itio n . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(B ). 3 E xcl us i on pr ocee di ngs w er e comm ence d agai ns tY ang s oon t her eaf t er . I n 1993, Y a n g f iled a n a p p lica tio n f

o r a sy lu m , cla im in g f

o r th e f irst tim e th a t h e h a d f

led C h in a “ to avoi d t he C hi nes e governm entper s ecut i on bas ed upon i t s coer ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . ” Y ang t es t i fi ed ata hea r i ng thathe had be en thr eat ened w i t h fi nes and s t er i l i zat i on i n 1983, aft erhi s w i fe ha d gi ven bi r t h t o t w i ns , and thathi s fami l yhad bee n for ced t o l eave t hei rvi l l age pe r m anent l yi n 1984 t o avoi d t he author i t i es . T he appl i cat i on w as i ni t i al l ydeni ed byan i m m i gr at i on j udge, w ho found Y ang nott o be cr edi bl e, butt he B IA late r te rm in a ted th e e x c lu sio n p ro c e e d in g s to a llo w f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e c a se in lig h t o f th e a g e n c y ’s r e c e n tlya d o p ted p o sitio n re c o g n izin g re sis tan c e to c o e rc iv e f a m ily pl anni ng pol i ci es as gr ounds fora cl ai m of per s ecut i on. 3 R emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e r e- i ns t i tut ed i n 2001, aft eran as y l um offi cerw ho had r evi ew ed the ca s e conc l uded aga i n t hatY ang w as notcr edi bl e. A ta s ubs equent i m m i gr at i on hear i ng, Y ang t es t i fi ed thatthe C hi nes e governm ent ’ s pol i cyof fi ni ng c o u p les w ith m o re th a n o n e c h ild h a d n o t b e e n e n f o rc e d in h is v ill a g e p rio r to 1 9 9 1 . Y e t, he al s o cl ai m ed thathe and hi s w i fe ha d fl ed thei rvi l l age i n 1984 t o avoi d enfor cementof t he pol i cy . Y ang s t at ed thataft er1984 he had be en abl e t o s ecur e a s er i es of j obs ar ound t he countr yand thathi s w i fe ha d gi ven bi r t h t o a thi r d chi l d i n 1986, w hi l e theyw er e i n a governm entdor m i t or y . N ei t herhe norhi s w i fe ha s been s t er i l i zed a nd, al t hough theF o r e x a m p le, Y a n g sta ted th a t h is f a m ilyh a d f

led th e ir h o m e in th e v ill a g e in 4 19 84 and nev er r eturned; y et , res i den ce cards subm i t t ed b yY ang from 19 88 and 19 90 l i st th is h o m e a s th e f

a m ily’s c u rr e n t r e s id e n c e . T o t he ext entt hatY ang cha l l enges the author i t yof the B I A t o aff i r m an 5 im m ig ra tio n d e c is io n w ith o u t o p in io n , w e h a v e p re v io u s ly re je c te d th is a rg u m e n t. See D ia v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 4 -35 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 4 C hi nes e governm enthas as s es s ed monet aryfi nes agai ns tY ang, he i ndi cat ed thathe has n e v e r p a id th e f

in e s . H is w if

e a n d c h ild re n re m a in in C h in a . T he I J deni ed the r eques t s foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T . T he I J not ed the di s cr epanc ybetw een Y ang’ s i ni t i al s t at ement s t o t he I N S offi cert hathe had c om e t o t he U ni t ed St at es t o earn m oneyand hi s l at eral l egat i ons of per s ecut i on bas ed on the one- chi l d pol i cy . T he I J al s o i dent i fi ed the contr adi ct i on betw een Y ang’ s t es t i m onyt hatt he pol i cyhad notbeen e nfor ced i n hi s vi l l age unt i l 1991 and hi s as s er t i on t hathe w as for ced t o l eave the vi l l age i n 1984 t o avoi d enfor cementof t he pol i cy . T he I J found, bas ed on thes e i ncons i s t enci es and other s , thatY ang w as not 4 cre d ible an d h ad n o t est ab li sh ed p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rs e c u tio n . T he B I A s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the I J . T hi s t i m el ypet i t i on for 5 r evi ew fol l ow ed.Ya n g c o n f i r me d i n t e s t i mo n yb e f

o r e th e I J th a th e h a d u n d e r s t o o d th e I NS 6 in te rp re te r d u ri n g h is in itia l in te rv ie w . C f. Ba l a s u b r a ma n r i m v . I NS , 143 F. 3d 157, 163- 64 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( not i ng t hatdi s cr epanc i es betw een a ns w er s t o i ni t i al i nt ervi ew ques t i ons and l at ert es t i m onycoul d nots uppor tadver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w hen ali en co u ld n o t un d erstan d interpre ter at i n it ial interview ). 5 II. W h ere the B IA af

firm s the IJ’s de cisi o n w ith o u t op inion , w e re v iew the IJ’s d e c is io n . P ar t

yka v . A t t or ney G ener al , 417 F. 3d 408, 411 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . Factual fi nd i ng s of t he IJ, i ncludi ng w hetherthe ali en h as expe ri enced “persecut i on ” or has a “w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on, ” mustbe 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 - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ); A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 84 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s a re a ls o re v ie w e d f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . G a o v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T o su p p o rt a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng, di s cr epanc i es i n an al i en’ s t es t i m onym us tgo t o t he “he artof the as y l um cl ai m . ” I d. T he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on i n t hi s cas e i s s uppor t ed bythe admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. U pon ent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es , Y ang i ndi cat ed thathe had l eft C hi na i n an ef

for tt o earn m oneyt o s uppor thi s fami l y ; y et , he l at eral l eged thathe had 6 l eftt he countr ybas ed on fe arof per s ecut i on. H e t es t i fi ed thatthe pol i cyof fi ni ng coupl es w i t h m or e than one c hi l d had notbeen e nfor ced i n hi s vi l l age unt i l 1991; y et , he cl ai m ed th a t h e a n d h is f

a m ilyh a d b e e n th re a ten e d w ith f in e s a n d f

o rc e d to f

lee th e v ill a g e in6

1984. H e as s er t ed thathe and hi s fami l yw er e underthr eatof s t er i l i zat i on and p u n ishm en t byC h ines e o ff ici als; y et, h e stated that h is w ife h ad g iven b irth to a thir d chi l d w hi l e i n a governm entdor m i t oryand conc eded thatnei t herhe norhi s w i fe, w ho has l i ved i n C hi na fort he l as tel even y ear s , has been s t er i l i zed, for ced t o payfi nes as s es s ed againstt hem , or ot herw i se pun i shed b ythe C hinese aut ho ri t i es. Y a n g o f f e rs n o re a so n a b le e x p lan a tio n f o r th e se c o n tra d ictio n s b u t m e re ly char act er i zes t hem as “ m i norand uni m por t ant . ” ( B r . of Pet ’ r6. ) T heyar e not . T hey r el at e di r ect l yt o Y ang’ s r eas ons forent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es and the manneri n w hi ch C hinese offi ci al s enfo rced the o ne-chi l d p oli cyagainsthim and his fam i l y . T hese c o n tr a d ic tio n s g o “ to th e h e a rt ” o f h is c la im o f

p e rs e c u tio n . See G ao , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 7 2 . T he I J appr opr i at el yr el i ed upon them t o fi nd thatY ang w as notcr edi bl e and thathe had n o t e s ta b lis h e d e ith e r p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See A h m e d v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 4 1 F . 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). III . T he fi ndi ng t hatY ang has notes t abl i s hed pas torfutur e per s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T hi s fi ndi ng defe at s the cl ai m s foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l, a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C A T . See Sh a rd a r v . A sh c ro ft , 382 F. 3d 318, 324 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); X

ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 9 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 1 -4 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A ccor di ngl y , t he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.