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 Third C irc uit 7-7-2009 

# Zhe ng v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3557

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Zhe ng v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1065. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1065NOT 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. 07- 3557 XI N L AN Z HE NG,

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 e s p o n d e n t O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 98- 740- 567 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e H enryS. D ogi n) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 24, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y7, 2009 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M. Pet i t i onerX i n L an Zheng se eks r evi ew of a f i nal deci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) ent er ed on J ul y30, 2007, aff i rm i ng the dec i s i on of the2

I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) t o denyZ heng’ s 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 onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe r eas ons th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I . B ackgr ound Z heng, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, w as det ai ned i n J anuary2005 aft erarr i vi ng i n th i s c o u n trywi th o u ta v a l i d e n tryd o c u me n t . Zh e n g f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C A T . S he clai m ed thatshe suffered p ast per s ecut i on and fe ar ed futur e per s ecut i on and t ortur e atthe hands of C hi nes e author i t i es o n a c c o u n t o f

h e r p ra c tic e o f

F a lu n G o n g . A t th e h e a rin g b e f

o re th e IJ, Z h e n g tes tifie d th a t sh e o w n e d a c lo th in g sto re in Fuzhou C i ty , Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. She beca m e depr es s ed af t era fa i l ed enga gement , and a c u sto m e r, L i C h iu ro n g , su g g e ste d th a t sh e tryF a lu n G o n g . Z h e n g b e g a n to re g u lar ly en g ag e in F alun G o n g ex erc ises. In N o v em b er 2 0 0 4 , af ter rece iving a ti p fro m Z h en g ’s nei ghbor , the pol i ce c ame t o arr es therforpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong. A l though Z heng w as n o t h o m e , h e r m o th e r w a s p re s e n t a n d w a s q u e s tio n e d a s to Z h e n g ’s w h e re a b o u ts . F e a ri n g a rr e s t, Z h e n g h id a t h e r u n c le ’s h o u s e f o r a f e w w e e k s a n d th e n f

le d C h in a . Z heng’ s cous i n t es t i fi ed thatZ heng enga ged i n Fal un G ong pr act i ces s i nce he r a rr i v a l i n th e Uni t e d St a t e s . Zh e n g a l s o i n tr o d u c e d l e t t e r s f r o m he rmoth e r , u n c l e , a n d Li C h iu ro n g to c o rro b o ra te h e r c laim s. In p a rticu lar , Z h e n g ’s m o th e r’s lette r sta ted th a t, aft erZ heng w enti nt o hi di ng, author i t i es acc us ed herof pr ovi di ng as s i s t ance t o her3

daught er . T he mot herw as w arned thatthe governm enti nt ended t o arr es theri ns t ead, and

“ [ i ] n o r d e rt o s a v e my s e l f , I h a d n o c h o i c e b u tt o b e c o me h o me l e s s a n d h i d e . . . . ” A. R. 170. Z heng al s o pr es ent ed a s ubs t ant i al quant i tyof obj ect i ve evi dence conce rni ng Ch i n a ’ s p e r s e c u t i o n a n d t o r tu r e o f F a l u n Go n g p r a c t i t i o n e r s , i n c l u d i n g a 2 0 0 4 U. N. R eporton C hi na’ s Per s ecut i on of Fal un G ong, A . R . 200- 23, a col l ect i on of exc erpt s fr om the 2003- 04 annual r eport s of the U . N . H um an R i ght s C om m i s s i on, A . R . 224- 322, and a 2005 C ountryR eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces , A . R . 323- 86. T he I J s t at ed that“Fal un G ong cl ear l yar e per s ons w ho ar e per s ecut ed atthe presentt i m e i n C hina and hav e been si nce 1 99 9. ” H ow ever, the IJ denied r el i ef be cause he found Zheng i ncr edi bl e conc erni ng hercomm i tm entt o Fal un G ong. Speci fi cal l y , he f o u n d th a t, ba se d u p o n in c o n sis ten c ies in h e r te stim o n y , “I h a v e se rio u s p ro b lem s a s to w h e th e r o r n o t sh e e v e r w a s a F a lu n G o n g p ra c tit io n e r. . . .” A .R . 4 7 . H e sim ilarly d o u b te d h e r c la im o f

f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n b e c a u s e “ s h e is n o t a v e ry tru th f u l p e rs o n , a p e rs o n w h o I d o n ’tth in k is g o in g b a c k [ to ] p ra c tis e [ F a lu n G o n g ]. . . .” A .R . 4 9 . O n ap p ea l, the B IA rev erse d the a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination . T h e B IA concl uded thatZ heng ade quat el yexpl ai ned the di s cr epanc i es under l y i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on, an d h eld th at “w e c an n o t aff irm this de term ination . ” A . R . 2 . N ev erthe less, the B IA found thatZ heng, even i f cr edi bl e, “fa i l ed t o per s uas i vel yes t abl i s h thatanyharm s he s uffe r ed w hi l e i n C hi na w as on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound orthati tw as of s uch s ever i tyas t o r i s e t o the l evel nece s s aryfora fi ndi ng of per s ecut i on and tr i ggerthe4

p re s u m p tio n w ith re g a rd to a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n in th e f

u tu re .” A .R . 3 . T he B I A concl uded that , w i thouts uch a pr es um pt i on and “i n l i ghtof the evi dence of rec o rd,” Z h en g fa il ed to p rese n t con v incin g ev iden ce o f a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on on acc ountof herFal un G ong pr act i ce. T he B I A ther efor e di s m i s s ed her a p p e a l. T h ro u g h c o u n s e l, Z h e n g f ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . II. A n a ly sis W e w i l l r evi ew l egal concl us i ons de novo, s ee Ezea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and w e w i l l uphol d fac tual det erm i nat i ons i f s uppor t ed “by r 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. ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . O n appea l , Z heng does notcont es tthe B IA ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e p a s t h a rm s h e s u f f e re d d id n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n . H ow ever , s he ar gues thats he pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor thercl ai m of 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 o n a c c o u n t o f h e r F a lu n G o n g p ra c tic e . T h e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f to e sta b lish e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m is o n th e a p p lica n t. A b d ill e v . A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T o estab li sh a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us ts how “both a s ubj ect i vel ygenui ne fe arof per s ecut i on and an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyof per s ecut i on. ” Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . D et erm i nat i on of an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyr equi r es a sc e rta in in g w h e th e r a re a so n a b le p e rso n in th o se c irc u m sta n c e s w o u ld f e a r p e rse c u tio n if5

re tu rn e d to th e c o u n tryin q u e stio n . Id . T h e su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd a p p lies to det erm i nat i ons of w hetheran al i en has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on. See A bdi l l e, 2 4 2 F .3 d a t 4 8 3 . W e have r ecogni zed thatthe pr act i ce of Fal un G ong i s a s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed g rou n d fo r asy lum p u rpo ses. S ee G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 7 -68 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), s uper s eded on othergr ounds bys t atut e as s t at ed i n K ai t a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 522 F. 3d 288, 295- 97 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I ndeed, w e have r efe rr ed t o C hi na’ s eff or t s t o er adi cat e Fal un G ong as a “r ei gn of t err or . ” G ao, 299 F. 3d at268. Z heng t es t i fi ed thats he pr act i ced Fal un G ong i n C hi na and c ont i nues t o pr act i ce i tt oday . T he B I A expr es s l yr ej ect ed the IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination an d n eith er p artyd ispu tes th is asp ec t of the B IA ’s deci s i on; w e ther efor e ac ceptZ heng’ s cr edi bi l i ty , i ncl udi ng hercomm i tm entt o Fal un G o n g . T h e IJ e x p resslyco n clud ed that “F alun G o n g clea rl yare p erso n s w h o are per s ecut ed atthe pr es entt i m e i n C hi na, ” and e s s ent i al l y , butfori t s fi ndi ng thats he w as n o t cr e d ib lyc o m m itt e d to th e p ra c tice o f F a lu n G o n g , ap p a re n tlyb e liev e d th a t sh e w o u ld “q u ali f[ y ] fo r asy lum . ” A . R . 4 4 . N ev erthe less, in a s ing le co n clus o rysen tenc e, th e B IA s u m m a ri ly re

je c te d Z h e n g ’s c la im o f 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 . T he B I A fai l ed t o di s cus s anyas pectof the “e vi dence of r ecor d” pr ovi di ng the b asis fo r i ts de cisi o n to rejec t Z h en g ’s fu ture p erse cu ti o n claim . M o reo v er, be ca u se th e IJ r es t ed i t s deci s i on on the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w i thoutr eac hi ng the i s s ue ofT he G ov ernm ent cont end s that the “alt ernat i ve b asi s” for the IJ’ s deci si on w as a 1 d e te rm in a tio n th a t Z h e n g f a ile d to e s ta b lis h 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 . W e di s agr ee. T he I J r ej ect ed Zheng’ s futur e per s ecut i on cl ai m bas ed upon the conc l us i on that hert est i m on yw as not cr edibl e. S ee A . R . 49 . T he IJ’ s ci t ed sup po rtfor i t s adverse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination w as th at Z h en g ’s frien d , L i C h iuro n g , d id n o t t esti fyto h arm su f f e re d o n a c c o u n t o f

h e r o w n F a lu n G o n g p ra c tice . H o w e v e r, Z h e n g e x p lain e d th a t, un l i ke L i C hiur on g, Z hen g w as turned in t o au tho ri t i es byher nei gh bo r, w ho w as a m emberof a gove rnm entpr opaganda uni t . G i ven the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatZ heng “adeq uatel yexp l ai ned the d i scr epan ci es w hich w ere i den t i fi ed as t he b asi s for the ad verse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, ” i ti s notcl earthatthi s as pectof the I J ’ s deci s i on s t ands . I n any event , the B I A di d notdi s cus s oradoptthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng conce rni ng L i C hi ur ong’ s l ack of h arm , an d ev en if i t had , this si n g le fa ct, w ith o u t anyad d it ion al discu ssion o f Z h en g ’s o th e r e v id e n c e , d o e s n o t alo n e p ro v id e su b sta n tial e v id e n c e u p o n w h ich th e B IA c o u ld r es ti t s concl us i on thatZ heng’ s “evi dence of r ecor d” w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n her bur den of pr oof. 6 the s u ff ici en cyo f Z h en g ’s ev iden ce , the B IA ca n n o t be s aid to h av e a d o p ted th e IJ’s r eas oni ng i n r eac hi ng i t s det erm i nat i on. C f. , D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 242- 43 ( 3d 1 C i r . 2002) ( B I A need noti ndepende nt l ys etforth the bas i s fori t s deci s i on w her e, by s um m ar i l yaff

i rm i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on, i t“pr es ent s forourr evi ew the r eas oni ng and deci s i on of the I J ”) . W i thoutm or e, w e ar e s i m pl yunabl e t o m eani ngful l yr evi ew the B I A ’ s concl us i on. W e ca nnotdet erm i ne w hetherthe B I A appr opr i at el ycons i der ed al l of Z heng’ s evi dence , orw hetheri tr eas onabl yr ej ect ed the evi dence as notcr edi bl e ornot su p p o rtiv e o f

h e r f u tu re p e rse c u tio n c laim . T h e B IA p ro v id e d n o b a sis f o r u s to d e te rm in e w h e th e r “ re a s o n a b le , s u b s ta n tia l a n d p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e ” s u p p o rt s its d e c is io n . S e e G u o , 3 8 6 F .3 d a t 5 6 1 .

“ W h e n d e f

icie n c ies in th e B IA ’s d e c isio n m a k e it i m p o ss ib le f o r u s to m eani ngful l yr evi ew i t s deci s i on, w e mustvaca t e thatdeci s i on and r emand so thatthe7

B IA ca n fu rth er e x p lai n it s rea so n ing . ” K ay em b e v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 4 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); see also G ao , 2 9 9 F . 3 d at 27 2 -73 (no ti n g that “the su b stan ti al ev iden ce stan d ard g ran ts si g n ifi ca n t def

ere n ce to the d eterm ination o f th e IJ,” b u t con clud ing that the IJ’s “f ail [u re] to d iscu ss an d ev alua te” c ertain e v iden ce “w arran t[ed ] rev ersa l and rem an d ”); T i pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 583 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( “[A ] deci s i on of the B I A m aybe r emanded if it f a ils a d e q u a te ly to c o n s id e r t h e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd w h ic h f a v o rs a n a p p lic a n t.” ). W e m u st th e re f

o re v a c a te th e B IA ’s d e c isio n re m a n d th is m a tter to th e B IA w ith i ns truct i ons t o cons i derZ heng’ s evi dence i n s uppor tof hercl ai m of a w el l - founded f ear of futur e per s ecut i on. I I I . C oncl us i on F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.