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- 3090

___________ M I N HUAN G, 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 200- 031- 251) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e M ar gar etR . R ei chenbe r g

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

A pr i l 14, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 15, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M i n H uang, a ci t i zen of C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deci s i on uphol di ng the deni al of hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um and r el at ed r e l i e f. F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2 I H u a n g e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in 2 0 0 5 w ith o u t in sp e c tio n , an d w a s p lac e d in r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A ta hea r i ng i n 2006, H uang appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l, a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). A s gr ounds forr el i ef, H uang al l eged thathe conve r t ed t o C hr i s t i ani tyi n 2004, and thathe r egul ar l ypart i ci pat ed i n under gr ound chur ch s ervi ces i n C hi na, typi cal l yatfel l ow congr egant s ’ hom es . H uang cl ai m ed thatdur i ng an East ercel ebr at i on i n 2005, pol i ce r ai ded the hous e w her e the s ervi ces w er e bei ng hel d and arr es t ed hi m and otherchur ch m ember s . H uang s t at ed thathe w as det ai ned fors even da y s , beat en r egul ar l y , and for ced t o pr om i s e thathe w oul d no l ongeratt end under gr ound chur ches . A ft erhi s r el eas e, H u a n g w e n t to a h o sp ital, w h e re h e w a s tre a ted f o r a b ro k e n a rm b ya d o c to r n a m e d L i, W e n b i n . H e c l a i m e d th a th e s t o p p e d a t t e n d i n g c h u r c h a n d s o o n f l e d th e c o u n try. In s u p p o rt o f

h is c la im f

o r r e lie f , H u a n g s u b m itte d , in tera lia , a copyof the m edi cal r ecor d fr om hi s pos t - i ncar cer at i on hos pi t al vi s i t . T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tys ubm i t t ed the medi cal r ecor d, al ong w i th otherdocument s , fora cons ul ar i nves t i gat i on. I n J une 2007, H uang r ece i ved a c opyof the cons ul arr eport , w hi ch s t at ed thatthe hos pi t al H uang cl ai m ed t o vi s i tdi d notempl oya doct ornamed L i , W enbi n, that por t i ons of the medi cal cert i fi cat e di d notus e norm al t erm i nol ogy , and thatthe s t amp on the r ecor d coul d notbe authent i cat ed. A tH uang’ s M ay2008 r emoval hear i ng, he w as unabl e t o pr ovi de anyexpl anat i on forthe di s cr epanc ybetw een hi s t es t i m onyand the3

c o n s u la r r e p o rt , s a v e f

o r h is a s s e rt io n th a t L i, W e n b in w a s h is d o c to r. T he IJ denied r el i ef, reas on i ng that al tho ug h H uan g d em on strat ed thathe w as a C hr i s t i an, hi s i nabi l i tyt o expl ai n orr es ol ve the i ncons i s t enci es betw een hi s t es t i m onyand the cons ul arr eport– des pi t e havi ng the r eportfornear l ya y earatthe t i m e of the hea r i ng – underm i ned the ver aci tyof hi s pas tper s ecut i on cl ai m . T he I J al s o det erm i ned that H uang fa i l ed t o s how a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on ora l i kel i hood thathe w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o C hi na. T he B I A di s m i s s ed H uang’ s appea l and he f i l ed a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. II W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er the p eti ti o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a). B ec au se th e B IA issue d it s o w n o p inion , w e re v iew it s d ec isi o n rathe r th an that o f th e IJ. Se e L i v. A tt ’y G en . , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, w e a lso loo k to the d ec isi o n o f th e IJ t o the ext entthatthe B I A defe r s t o oradopt s the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew agenc yfac tual det erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and w e w i l l uphol d a fa ctual det erm i nat i on “unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zhang v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). H u an g raises three arg u m en ts i n h is pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew . F ir st, h e a rgu es th at th e IJ a n d B IA v io late d h is rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss b yre ly in g o n th e c o n su lar re p o rt to d e n yh is p a s t p e rs e c u tio n c la im . A lie n s f a c in g re m o v a l a re e n title d to d u e p ro c e s s p ro te c tio n s .I n i t s r epl ybr i ef, the G overnm entnot es that , befor e the B I A , H uang ar gued thatt he 1 IJ act ed im properl yun der E zeagw un a, bu tfai l ed to cou ch h i s ar gu m ent i n “d ue p rocess ” lang u ag e. In the G o v ern m en t’ s v iew , then , w e lac k juri sd ict ion to en tert ain H u an g ’s c laim in a sm u c h a s it ra ise s a c o n stitu tio n a l issu e b e c a u se h e f a iled to e x h a u st th e c laim in ad m inistrati v e p roc ee d ing s. S ee L in v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 -21 & n . 6 (3d C ir . 20 08 ). T he G ov ernm ent’ s ar gu m ent pl ai nlyl acks m eri t . A s w e hav e repeat edlyheld, “so l ong as an i m m i gr at i on pet i t i onerm akes s om e ef for t , how everi ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace the B oar d on not i ce of

a s tr ai ght forw ar d i s s ue bei ng r ai s ed on appe al , a pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhaus t ed heradmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ” J os eph v. A t t ’ yG en. , 465 F. 3d 123, 126 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . H uang’ s r efe r ence t o E zea gw una and a ccompany i ng anal y s i s ques t i oni ng the r el i abi l i tyof the cons ul arr eportw er e pl ai nl ys uffi ci entt o m eetthe exha us t i on r equi r ement . Fur therbel y i ng the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum enti s the foc us of Ezeagw una i t s el f: ourul t i m at e conc ern w i th t he cons ul arr eporti n thatcas e w as w hetheri t s us e as evidence v i olat ed the peti t i on er’ s r i gh tt o d ue p rocess . 4 S e e E z e a g w u n a v . A sh c ro f t, 32 5 F .3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). In th e e v id e n tiary co n tex t, d u e p ro c e s s re q u ir e s th a t e v id e n c e c o n s id e re d b yth e B IA b e re lia b le a n d tru s tw o rt h y . See i d. I n E zea gw una, the age ncydeni ed r el i ef, r el y i ng al m os texcl us i vel yon a cons ul ar inv esti g ati o n rep o rtw h ich (1 ) co n tai n ed m u lt iple leve ls of h ea rsay , in tha t th e lett er’s author w as atl eastthree peo ple r em ov ed from the actual i nv est i gatorydeclar ants , ( 2) cont ai ned no expl anat i on of w hati nves t i gat i on actual l yt ook pl ace , and ( 3) w as i s s ued t o the al i en onl ya fe w day s befor e the r emoval hear i ng. I d. at406- 08. C i t i ng E zea gw una, H uang cont ends thatthe B I A ’ s r el i ance on the cons ul arr eportw as i mp r o p e r . Ho we v e r , Hu a n g ’ s c a s e i s c l e a r l yd i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . We a g r e e wi th th e BI A,

1
w h ich re a so n e d th a t, un lik e th e re p o rt a t issu e in E z e a g w u n a , the c o n su lar re p o rt in H uang’ s cas e w as pr epar ed bythe s ame i ndi vi dual w ho conduct ed the i nves t i gat i on, t he authorw as i n di r ectcont actw i th t he or gani zat i ons thatanal y zed H uang’ s pr offe r ed5

document s , and H uang r ece i ved a c opyof the r eportnear l ya y earbefor e hi s r emoval hear i ng. I n s hor t , the r eporti n t hi s cas e does notpr es entthe conc erns w e found pr obl emat i c i n E zea gw una. A ccor di ngl y , w e per cei ve no err ori n the B oar d’ s r el i ance on th e c o n su lar re p o rt. Second, H uang ar gues thatthe I J err ed i n concl udi ng thathe di d notdemonstr at e a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . S p e c if ica lly , h e a rg u e s th a t th e IJ f a iled to cons i derw hetherH uang hel d a w el l - founded f earthathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outfor p e rse c u tio n . W e d isa g re e . T h e IJ s p e c if ica llya d d re ss e d th is iss u e , rea so n in g th a t, i n cons i der at i on of hi s appar ent l yfal s e medi cal r eportand the 2007 St at e D epart m ent C ountryR eporton C hi na, w hi ch w as the onl ybackgr ound evi dence pr es ent ed, H uang f a iled to p re se n t su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to d e m o n stra te e ith e r p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n b a s e d o n h is p a rt ic ip a tio n in C h ri s tia n re lig io u s a c tiv itie s . A . R . 56- 57. Fi nal l y , H uang ar gued thatthe B I A err ed i n det erm i ni ng thathe fa i l ed t o qual i fy foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T r el i ef. I n deny i ng r el i ef, the I J r eas oned – and the B I A agr eed – thatH uang’ s s eemi ngl yfr audul entm edi cal r eportunderm i ned the ver aci tyof hi s cl ai m thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. T he I J fur therr eas oned that beca us e H uang fa i l ed t o demonstr at e pas tper s ecut i on, and bec aus e the r ecor d evi dence d id n o t su p p o rt a f

in d in g th a t a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n a g a in st C h ristia n s e x ists in C h in a , H u a n g a ls o f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te 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 .A s i de fr om hi s bar e as s ert i on thatthe B oar d err ed, H uang has pr es ent ed no ar gum entt hat

w oul d compel thi s C our tt o concl ude thatthe B oar d r eac hed an i ncorr ectdeci s i on. B e c a u se H u a n g w a s in e lig ib le f o r a sy lu m , w e a lso a g re e th a t h e w a s u n a b le to m eetthe hi ghers t andar d appl i cabl e t o appl i cat i ons forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . See Si oe T jen W o n g v . A tt’yG e n ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 6 -3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). N o r d id h e d e m o n stra te eli g ibil ityfo r C A T p rotec ti o n . S ee K am ara v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 2 0 F . 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 2 -13 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 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.

6