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 2-3-2010 

# Zhuangka o H a o 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 . 09-4341

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 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 " Zhuan gka o H a o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1940. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1940A L D - 101 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- 4341

___________ Z HUANG KAO HA O,

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.

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s ( A gencyN o. A 098- 977- 148) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: M arg are t R eich en b erg

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J anuary22, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O A N D SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : February3, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Z huangkao H ao, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, pet i t i ons forr 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 the2

I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ’ s ”) deni al of as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r t he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . W e w i l l gr antthe governm ent ’ s m ot i on for s um m aryaff

i r m ance and denyH ao’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew beca us e i tpr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4 and 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6. I. H ao w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 2004 as a vi s i t or , butr emai ned l onger th a n p e rm itt e d . H e w a s p lac e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s, d u rin g w h ich h e c o n c e d e d h is r emovabi l i t y . H ao appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T pr ot ect i on, c laim in g th a t h e h a d b e e n p e rse c u ted in C h in a b e c a u se h e a n d h is w if e v io late d th e f

a m ily pl anni ng pol i cybyhavi ng a s econd s on. In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 9 , H a o h a d a h e a rin g o n h is a p p lica tio n . H e tes tifie d th a t w h e n h is w i fe be came pr egnantw i t h t hei rs econd c hi l d i n 1989, s he hi d ata r el at i ve’ s hous e. H ao w as appar ent l yatw or k el s ew her e w hen off i ci al s demanded thathi s w i fe ha ve an a bor t i on and t ook 1, 500 R M B fr om hi s par ent s t o s ecur e herr eturn forthe pr ocedur e. H e t es t i fi ed t hatoffi ci al s al s o br oke i nt o hi s hous e and t ook a s ew i ng m achi ne, t el evi s i on, and cl ot hes cl os etand thatt heyr emoved t he r oof fr om one of the r oom s . H i s w i fe di d notunder go an abor t i on and bor e a s econd s on i n l at e 1989. I n l at e 1992, acc or di ng t o H ao, a vi l l age of fi ci al i nvi t ed hi m t o a meet i ng r egar di ng t he r egi s t r at i on of hi s chi l dr en and the r ece i ptof l and. O nce a tthe off i ce, H ao s aw that t he onl yat t endee s w er e peopl e w ho had had tw o chi l dr en. T he off i ci al t ol d t hem t heyhad3

vi ol at ed the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cyand gave them cont r act s fors t er i l i zat i on. H ao r e f u s e d a n d t r i e d t o f

l e e , b u twa s s t o p p e d a n d h e l d o v e r n i g h t . Th e n e x td a yh i s wi f e c a me a n d to ld h im th a t s h e h a d s ig n e d a s te ri liz a tio n c o n tr a c t s o th a t h e w o u ld b e f re e d to w o rk . L at ert hatm or ni ng, H ao’ s w i fe w as s t er i l i zed a nd H ao w as r el eas ed and a l l ow ed t o t ake herhom e. H e t es t i fi ed thatoffi ci al s di d nottr oubl e hi s fami l yaft erthe s t er i l i zat i on and th a t h e w a s g iv e n a s m a ll p lo t o f la n d a n d w a s p e rm itte d to re g is te r h is s e c o n d s o n . A boutt w el ve y ear s l at er , i n 2004, H ao l eftC hi na. H ao t ol d t he I J t hathe fe ar ed r eturni ng t o C hi na bec aus e he ha d been he r e for m anyy ear s and fe l l ow vi l l ager s i n the U ni t ed St at es m ayhave c al l ed home and r eport ed t hathe appl i ed foras y l um . H e fe ar ed the C hi nes e governm entw oul d “t ake r evenge ” on him bypu bli cl ycri t i ci zi ng him , dest roy i ng his ho m e, and sei zi ng his l and . B ut H ao als o t es t i fi ed thatno one had c ont act ed hi s w i fe a bouthi m s i nce he l eftC hi na and thatnot hi ng had bee n done t o hi s fami l ys i nce hi s departur e. T h e IJ d e n ied re lief

a n d o rd e re d H a o re m o v e d to C h in a , co n c lu d in g th a t h e h a d n o t s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. T he I J fi r s tnot ed that , as a mat t erof l aw , H ao coul d not m ai nt ai n a cl ai m foras y l um bas ed on hi s w i fe’ s coer ced s t er i l i zat i on. T he I J then c o n sid e re d H a o ’s te stim o n yre g a rd in g h is o v e rn ig h t d e ten tio n , the f in e p a id b yh is par ent s , t he s ei zur e of pr oper t y , and the part i al des t ruct i on of hi s r oof, and conc l uded that the a cti o n s d id n o t r ise t o the lev el of p erse cu ti o n . In su p p o rto f th is co n clus ion , the IJ not ed thatH ao w as det ai ned onl yoverni ghtand w as notharm ed, thatthe fi ne w as l evi ed4

againstH ao’s parent s, no thim , and that there w as no ev i den ce t hat theyfou nd i ton erous, and thatw hi l e the part i al r emoval of hi s r oof w as “s er i ous , ” i tw as offs etbythe governm ent ’ s aw ar d of l and and r egi s t r at i on forthe s econd c hi l d. Fi nal l y , the I J r ej ect ed H a o ’s c laim s th a t h e w ill f a c e f u tu re p e rse c u tio n in C h in a , n o tin g th a t itw a s u n re a so n a b le t o t hi nk t hatbi r t h contr ol offi ci al s w oul d harm hi m w hen nothi ng had bee n done t o hi m or hi s fami l yi n t he s i xt een y ear s s i nce hi s w i fe’ s s t er i l i zat i on, and thathi s fea r s of r evenge fors eeki ng as y l um w er e uns ubs t ant i at ed and i ncons i s t entw i t h countr ycondi t i ons as r efl ect ed i n t he evi dence of r ecor d. O n appea l , the B I A aff i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on, not i ng that the IJ’s d ec isi o n is th e f inal ag en cyd eterm ination in this m att er. H a o tim e lyf

iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew a n d m o v e d f

o r a sta yo f

re m o v a l p e n d in g th is C o u rt ’s rev iew . T h e g o v ern m en t op p o ses a stayan d h as m o v ed fo r a su m m ary di s pos i t i on on t he mer i t s of the pet i t i on. H ao, w ho i s r epr es ent ed bycouns el , oppos es s um m arydi s pos i t i on. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252 t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of re m o v a l. In th is c a se , the B IA a f f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n w ith o u t o p in io n a n d e x p re ss ly s t at ed thatt he I J ’ s deci s i on w as t he “f i nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on. ” W e ther efor e r evi ew t he I J ’ s deci s i on. See C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n doi ng s o, w e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs fors ubs t ant i al evi dence and maynotdi s turb t hem “‘ unl es s any rea so n ab le ad

jud icator w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ’” S an d ie v. A tt ’yIn h is m o tio n f o r a sta yo f

re m o v a l, H a o a rg u e d th a t th e IJ e rre d b yf a ili n g to 1 concl ude thatt he harm he s uffe r ed – det ent i on, hi s w i fe’ s s t er i l i zat i on, the s ei zur e of p e rso n a l p ro p e rty , the d e stru c tio n o f a p o rtio n o f

h is ro o f , an d th e f

in e p a id b yh is p a re n ts

– cu m u lat ivelyam o u n ted to p ast p erse cu ti o n . A fter the g o v ern m en t m o v ed fo r sum m ary aff i r m ance bas ed on ourdeci s i on i n L i n- Z heng, H ao al t er ed hi s ar gum ent , cl ai m i ng that t he i s s ue i n hi s cas e i s w hetherhe s uffe r ed ec onom i c per s ecut i on. 5 G en. , 56 2 F . 3d 24 6, 25 1 (3d C i r. 20 09 ) ( qu oti ng 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)( 4)( B )) . W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overconcl us i ons of l aw , s ubj ectt o t he es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of def er ence acc or ded age ncydeci s i on- m aki ng. See Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 231 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). U n d e r th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t (“ IN A ” ), an a p p lica n t m a yd e m o n stra te eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum b ysh o w ing eith er 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 per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T he I N A fur t hers t at es that“a p e rs o n w h o h a s b e e n f

o rc e d to a b o rt a p re g n a n c yo r t o u n d e rg o in v o lu n ta ry st e ri liz a tio n . . . s h a ll b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n p e rs e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f p o litic a l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( B ) . W e r ece nt l yhel d, how ever , thatther e i s no aut om at i c r efuge e s t atus fors pous es of i ndi vi dual s s ubj ect ed t o coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es . L i n- Z heng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 147, 157 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) . T hus , t o t he ext entthatH ao r el i es on hi s w i fe’ s s t er i l i zat i on t o s uppor thi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , ourdeci s i on i n L i nZh e n g p r e c l u d e s t h e c l a i m. 1 D es pi t e ourhol di ng i n L i n- Z heng, s pous es r emai n el i gi bl e forr el i ef i f theycan estab li sh their ow n p erse cu ti o n fo r resist ing C h ina’s c o erc ive f am il yp lann ing p o li cyo r a6

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 f

o r t h a t r e s is ta n c e . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ). H er e, H ao ar gues t hatt he “i s s ue i s w hetherornot[he] has s uffe r ed ec onom i c per s ecut i on as t he r es ul tof hi s w i fe’ s r efus al t o have a n abor t i on w hi l e pr egnantw i t h hers econd chi l d. ” H e cont ends t hatt he fi ne l evi ed aga i ns thi s par ent s , the s ei zur e of pe r s onal pr oper t y( s ew i ng m achi ne, t el evi s i on, and cl othes cl os et ) , and the part i al des t ruct i on of hi s r oof cons t i tut e ec onom i c per s ecut i on. Set t i ng as i de the ques t i on of w hetherH ao ca n e sta b lish th a t he r es i s t ed C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cybyhi s w i fe’ s r efus al t o have a n abor t i on, w e agr ee w i t h t he I J t hatH ao di d notdemonstr at e ec onom i c per s ecut i on.

“ [ P ]e rse c u tio n c o n n o tes e x tre m e b e h a v io r, in c lu d in g th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe or fre ed o m . ” A h m ed v . A sh cro ft, 3 4 1 F . 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). It “does noti ncl ude al l t r eatm entt hatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” I d. T he s t andar d foreconomi c per s ecut i on i s s t r i ngent , r equi r i ng a pet i t i onert o s how “the del i ber at e i m pos i t i on of s ever e ec onom i c di s advant age w hi ch threa tens a p eti ti o n er’s li fe o r free d o m . ” L i v. A tt ’yG en . , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H a o , w h o h a s th e b u rd e n o f e s ta b lis h in g h is e lig ib ility f o r a s y lu m , s e e 8 C .F .R . § 208. 13( a) , has fai l ed t o m eett hi s s t andar d. Fi r s t , r egar di ng t he fi ne pai d byhi s par ent s , H ao fa i l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence t hat t he fi ne af

fec t ed hi m , l etal one thati tw as oner ous . T her e i s nothi ng i n t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d t o s ugges tt hatH ao r el i ed on hi s par ent s t o hel p s uppor thi m s el f and hi s fami l y , norH a o p re se n ted n o e v id e n c e to h e lp g a u g e th e m a g n itu d e o f th e se izu re in 2 r el at i ons hi p t o hi s m eans , nordi d he t es t i fyaboutthe i m pactof the s ei zur e, orw hethert he obj ect s s ei zed w er e of pa r t i cul areconomi c s i gni fi canc e. Forexampl e, al t hough H ao t es t i fi ed thathe i s a ca rpent erand had a s m al l furni tur e- m aki ng bus i nes s , he di d not expl ai n w hetherhi s w i fe us ed the s ew i ng m achi ne t o s uppl ementthei ri ncome, orw hether i tw as i ns t rum ent al t o keepi ng t hei rfami l ycl othed. T he I J cons i der ed the fa ctt hatH ao w as gr ant ed l and and pe r m i s s i on t o r egi s t er 3 hi s s econd c hi l d aft erhi s w i fe’ s s t er i l i zat i on. A l t hough thi s does notappea rt o be relev an t t o w h ethe r th e p ri o r, p arti al de stru cti o n o f h is r o o f c o n sti tuted p erse cu ti o n , the IJ al s o s epar at el yconcl uded that“the t aki ng off of a r oof of one r oom ” di d notr i s e t o t he l e v e l o f p e r s e c u t i o n . As e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , th i s c o n c l u s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b yHa o ’ s o wn t e s t i m o n y. 7 i s t her e anyevi dence r egar di ng hi s par ent s ’ m eans and how s ever e the fi ne w as i n t hat co n text. S im il arly , H ao fa il ed to p rese n t anyev iden ce that the s eizu re o f h is fam il y ’s t el evi s i on, s ew i ng m achi ne, and cl othes cl os eti m pos ed a s ever e ec onom i c di s advant age. 2 F in a lly , w e a g re e w ith th e IJ th a t, w h ile th e d e stru c tio n o f a p o rtio n o f

H a o ’s r o o f

is “ser i ou s, ” i tdo es not r i se t o the l evel of persecut i on . A l t ho ug h H ao tes t i fi ed thati tw as a n u m b e r o f

y e a rs b e f

o re h e re p a ire d th e ro o f (o r b u ilta n e w h o u se - th e tes tim o n yis s om ew hatuncl ear ) w hi ch mi ghts ugges tthatthe damage i m pos ed an e conomi c s t r ai n, he al s o t es t i fi ed thathe l i ved i n t he r emai ni ng por t i on of the hous e unt i l he di d s o. E ven 3 vi ew ed i n t he aggr egat e, t he evi dence does nots ugges tthatthe conf i s cat i on and des t ruct i on of H ao’ s pr oper t y , w hi l e unfa i roreven de pl or abl e, thr eat ened hi s l i fe or d e p r i v e d h i m o f

h o u s i n g o ro t h e re s s e n t i a l s . S e e L i , 4 0 0 F . 3 d a t1 6 8 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we ar e compel l ed t o concl ude thatt he I J ’ s deci s i on thatH ao fa i l ed t o s how pas tper s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d.Fort hes e r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antthe governm ent ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryact i on and

d en ythe p eti ti o n fo r rev iew . In li g h t of this dispo sit ion , w e a lso d en yH ao ’s m o ti o n fo r a s ta yo f re m o v a l p e n d in g re v ie w .

8