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. 08- 4584 XU HAN G Z HANG; P I NG MEI L I N, P eti ti o n ers 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 P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a F inal O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Fr eder i c G . L eeds

( N os . A 099- 686- 987/ 8)

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

J une 3, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, 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: J ul y22, 2010)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge X u H ang Zhang and Pi ng M ei L i n s eek r evi ew of the fi nal or derof the B oar d ofL i n i s a der i vat i ve bene fi ci aryof Zhang’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of 1 r emoval , and C A T pr ot ect i on. Th e r e a r e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s r e g a r d i n g th e d a t e Li n e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . I n s o me 2 in sta n c e s th e re c o rd n o tes sh e a rriv e d in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 a n d in o th e rs th e d a te is D ece m ber2005. 2 Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e n y in g th e ir re q u e st f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, 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 that 1 fol l ow , w e gr antthei rpet i t i on forr evi ew i n part , denyi ti n part , and r emand t he ca s e for fur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. I. Z h a n g a n d L in a re a h u sb a n d a n d w if e f ro m th e P e o p le’ s R e p u b lic o f C h in a . B o th ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thouta vi s a— L i n i n D ece m ber2005 and Zhang ( w i th the 2 coupl e’ s s on) i n J anuary2006. Z hang then fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on w i th U ni t ed St at es C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces ( “C I S”) . C I S deni ed Zhang’ s appl i cat i on, fi ndi ng thathi s “t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e i n m at er i al r es pect s , . . . [and thathe] fai l ed t o m eet the b u rde n o f e stab li sh ing . . . ref u g ee [status u n d er] 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 . ” (A . R . 1 7 0 . ) Z hang conc eded r emovabi l i tyand r e- fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l, a n d C A T p ro te c tio n . Z h a n g ’s a m e n d e d a p p lica tio n a lleg e d th a t h e a n d h is w if e w e re p e rse c u ted w h ile in C hi na. I n part i cul ar , he hi ghl i ght ed thr ee i nci dent s , tw o i nvol vi ng the under gr ound C athol i c C hur ch and one i nvol vi ng a for ced a bor t i on. T he fi r s tchur ch- r el at ed i nci dent al l egedl yt ook pl ace i n M ay2003, w hen a s ecr etchur ch gather i ng w as di s cover ed by3

l ocal cadr es . E very one es cape d exce ptZ hang, w ho w as det ai ned for24 hour s and abus ed bythe ca dr es . I n or dert o be r el eas ed, Z hang pr om i s ed t o qui tthe under gr ound chur ch; how ever , he br oke thi s pr om i s e s hor t l yther eaf t er . T he s econd c hur ch- r el at ed i nci dent al l egedl yoccurr ed i n N ovember2004, w hen Zhang deci ded t o hous e a pr i es tand or gani ze a M as s i n hi s hom e. T he ca dr es l earned of thi s and s etoutt o arr es thi m agai n; how ever , Z hang and hi s w i fe w er e t i pped off and fl ed t o a fa m i l ym ember ’ s hom e for s a f e ty. T h e yth e n le f

t th e c o u n tr y . B e tw e e n th e s e tw o in c id e n ts , L in w a s a lle g e d ly f o rc e d to h a v e a n a b o rt io n . F o llo w in g th e b irth o f

h e r f irst c h ild , C h in e se a u th o rities in se rte d a n IU D . T h e IU D f e ll out , how ever , and Li n beca m e pr egnant . A ft erhi di ng fr om the author i t i es and s ki ppi ng herper i odi c gynecol ogi cal exami nat i ons fors even mont hs , L i n w as found byl ocal c a d re s , d ra g g e d to a h o s p ita l, a n d f o rc e d to h a v e a n a b o rt io n . In a d d it ion to the se a ll eg ati o n s o f p ast p erse cu ti o n , the c o u p le also f ea rs fu ture per s ecut i on bas ed on the r ece ntbi r th of thei rs econd c hi l d, w ho w as born i n the U ni t ed St at es . T heyal l ege thatthi s bi r th i s a vi ol at i on of C hi na’ s Fam i l yPl anni ng Pol i cy , and thattheyw i l l be per s ecut ed upon thei rr eturn t o C hi na. F o ll o w ing a h ea ri n g in A p ri l 20 0 7 , the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e d en ied th e p eti ti o n ers al l r el i ef. Fi r s t , he conc l uded that“atthi s t i m e . . . the [pe t i t i oner s ] as a m at t erof law [ c o u ld n o t] p u rsu e [ th e ] th e o ry[ th a t th e b irth o f a se c o n d c h ild in th e U n ited S tate s w o u ld co n sti tute a v iolati o n o f C h ina’s F am il yP lann ing P o li cy ]. ” (A . R . 6 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ) H e al s o found thatZ hang w as notcr edi bl e. T hi s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w as bas ed on4

v a rio u s in c o n sis ten c ies in Z h a n g ’s te stim o n y , inc lu d in g : (1 ) th e n u m b e r o f p e o p le a rre ste d in th e M a y2 0 0 3 in c id e n t; (2 ) th e n u m b e r o f c a d re s in v o lv e d in Z h a n g ’s a rre st; (3) the ex tent o f th e p eti ti o n ers’ inv o lvem en t w ith the u n d erg rou n d ch u rch in C h ina; (4) a pr i es t ’ s fai l ur e t o corr obor at e ei therof the pet i t i oner s ’ chur ch- r el at ed i nci dent s of per s ecut i on i n a l ett ert o t he I J ; and ( 5) contr adi ct orydat es gi ven forthe N ovember2004 i ncident . F i nall y , the IJ di sm i ssed the fo rced abo rt i on cl ai m becau se hi s adverse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on as t o t he chur ch- r el at ed i nci dent s “r ai s e[d] ques t i ons [about ] t he test im o n yo n the f

am il yp lann ing m att er” as w ell . (A . R . 7 1 . ) T he pet i t i oner s fi l ed a not i ce of appea l . I n O ct ober2008 the B I A aff i r m ed, hol di ng thatthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w as notcl ear l yerr oneous and thatt hey “agr ee[ d] w i th t he [I J ’ s ] deci s i on thatthe [pe t i t i oner s w er e] notel i gi bl e forr el i ef ba s ed on the bi r th of chi l dr en i n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” ( A . R . 2. ) Z hang then fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on for r eview byus. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252 t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval is s u e d b yth e B IA . Sandi e v. A t t ’ y G en. , 562 F. 3d 246, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . “[W ] hen the B IA b o th ad o p ts th e f

ind ing s o f th e IJ a n d d iscu sses so m e o f th e b ase s fo r th e IJ’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 sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . “W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s l egal deci s i ons de novo . . . . ” Touss ai ntv. A t t ’ y G en. , 455 F. 3d 409, 413 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W hen an e r r oneous l egal s t andar d i s appl i ed, “a r emand i s . . . r equi r edA l though t he G overnm ental l eges thatthe pet i t i oner s have notchal l enged the 3 d ism iss a l o f

th e ir U .S .-b irth c laim (G o v ’t B r. at 9 n .4 ), th e p e tit io n e rs d id ra ise it i n th e ir br i ef be for e the B I A ( A . R . 11- 12, 19) , as w el l as i n thei rbr i ef be for e us ( Pet ’ rB r . at18- 1 9 ). In a d d it ion , the B IA ex p resslyaf firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n o n thes e g rou n d s. (A . R . 2 . ) T her efor e, w e maycons i derthe pet i t i oner s ’ U . S. - bi r th cl ai m her e. 5 t o perm i tappl i cat i on of the appr opr i at e l egal s t andar d. ” R apanos v. U ni t ed Stat es , 547 U . S. 715, 786 ( 2006) ( K ennedy , J . , concurr i ng) ( ci t i ng IN S v. V entura , 537 U . S. 12, 16 (2 0 0 2 )); s ee Konan v. A t t ’ y G en , 432 F. 3d 497, 501 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( s t at i ng thatw hen a “cl ai m w as nevercons i der ed [bythe I J orB I A , ] the ca s e mustbe r emanded”) . Factual fi ndi ngs , i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs of adve r s e cr edi bi l i ty , ar e s ubj ectt o the s ubs t ant i al evi dence s ta n d a rd . Sa n d ie , 5 6 2 F . 3 d at 25 1 . “U n d er this de fe ren ti al st an d ard , ‘find ing s o f f ac t are concl us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ’ ” Id . (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B )) . III . In th e ir p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , the p e tit io n e rs c h a llen g e th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e t e r m i n a t i o n , a s w e l l a s th e I J ’ s ( a n d B I A ’ s ) d i s m i s s a l o f th e i rU . S . - b i r th c l a i m . We 3 granttheirpeti t i on for r eview i n p artand den yi ti n p art . W hil e w e rej ectthe p et i t i on ers ’ chal l enge t o t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng beca us e i tw as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e r ej ectas w el l the I J ’ s ( and B I A ’ s ) concl us i on thatthe pet i t i oner s ar e barr ed a s a m a tter o f

law f ro m a rg u in g th a t th e yw ill b e p e rse c u ted u n d e r C h in a ’s F a m ily Pl anni ng Pol i cyforhavi ng a s econd c hi l d w hi l e i n the U ni t ed St at es . T hi s l egal err or r equi r es us t o r emand t hi s cas e t o t he I J forfur therr evi ew of the evi dence r egar di ng t he p e t i t i o n e r s ’ U. S . - b i r th c l a i m.6 A. W e turn fi r s tt o t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. T o r ever s e s uch a fi ndi ng, “the evi dence of cr edi bi l i tym us tbe s o s tr ong . . . thati n a ci vi l tr i al [the al i en] w oul d be ent i t l ed t o j udgm enton the cr edi bi l i tyi s s ue as a mat t erof l aw . ” C hen , 376 F. 3d at222. A ft erthe R E A L I D A ctof 2005, cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons m us tbe made “[c ] ons i der i ng the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , ” and maybe bas ed on “the i nher ent pl aus i bi l i tyof the appl i cant ’ s . . . acc ount , the cons i s t encybetw een the a p p lica n t’s . . . w ritten a n d o ra l sta tem e n ts . . . , the c o n sis ten c yo f su c h sta tem e n ts w ith otherevi dence of r ecor d . . . , and anyi nacc ur aci es orfal s ehoods i n s uch s t at ement s . ” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(B )(iii) . T h e trier o f f a c t m a ym a k e th e a ss e ss m e n t “w ith o u t re g a rd to w h ethe r an inco n sist en cy , inac cu rac y , o r fa lseh o o d g o es to the h ea rto f th e a p p li ca n t’ s cl ai m , oranyot herr el evantfac t or . ” I d. W e m a yo n lyo v e rtu rn a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on i f w e conc l ude that“anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be com pel l ed to concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” I d. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e IJ o f f e re d n u m e ro u s re a so n s a s to w h yZ h a n g lac k e d c re d ib ili ty . H e n o ted , in p a rticu lar , tha t: (1 ) Z h a n g ’s w ritten a n d o ra l sta tem e n ts a b o u t th e n u m b e r o f p e o p le a rre ste d in th e M a y2 0 0 3 in c id e n t w e re in c o n sis ten t; (2 ) th e n u m b e r o f c a d re s in v o lv e d in Z hang’ s arr es t( dur i ng the M ay2003 i nci dent ) change d fr om tw o t o thr ee f r om hi s w r i t t en s t at ementt o hi s or al t es t i m ony ; ( 3) Z hang’ s or al t es t i m onyabouthi s chur ch ac t i vi t i es w as confus ed and i ncoher ent ; ( 4) the af fi davi tfr om the pet i t i oner s ’ pr i es ti n C hi na ( w hi ch w as s uppos ed t o corr obor at e thei rs t or i es ) fai l ed t o offe ranyi nform at i on aboutei therchur ch-7

r el at ed i nci dent ; and ( 5) Z hang pr ovi ded di ffe r entdat es forthe N ovember2004 i nci dent i n hi s w r i t t en and or al s t at ement s . C ol l ect i vel y , thes e i ncons i s t enci es pr ovi de s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o aff

i r m the I J ’ s ( and B I A ’ s ) deci s i on. W e out l i ne ea ch. T urni ng fi r s tt o t he M ay2003 i nci dent , the I J began hi s anal y s i s bydi s cus s i ng t he i s s ue of how m anychur ch mem ber s w er e arr es t ed. Z hang’ s appl i cat i on s t at ed that“the vi l l age c adr es arr i ved on the s cene . . . and pr ocee ded t o arr es tus , ” butdur i ng the hea r i ng Z hang t es t i fi ed thatonl yhe w as arr es t ed. ( A . R . 127- 28, 467. ) A l though Z hang off er ed a p la u s ib le e x p la n a tio n f

o r t h is a p p a re n t in c o n s is te n c y , th e IJ re je c te d it. I n addi t i on, the I J not ed thatZ hang conf us ed the numberof ca dr es thatarr es t ed h im . In Z h a n g ’s w ri tte n s ta te m e n t, h e s a id , “ I w a s u n c e rt a in w h o p u s h e d m e [ ,] b u t I f e ll t o the gr ound. A ft ergett i ng back on myfee ttw o vi l l age c adr es w er e bef or e me and fi r m l ygr abbed me. T he vi l l age c adr es arr es t ed me and pl ace d m e i n det ent i on . . . . ” (A .R . 4 6 7 .) A t th e h e a rin g , the IJ a sk e d Z h a n g h o w m a n yc a d re s c a m e in to th e c h u rc h , to w hi ch he r epl i ed “[ t ] hr ee of them” ( A . R . 126) ; l at er , w hen as ked w hetherthr ee gr abbed hi m and br oughthi m i n, Z hang hes i t at ed and then s ai d “corr ect . ” ( A . R . 129. ) W hen as ked t o cl ar i fythi s i ncons i s t ency , Z hang expl ai ned that“[t ] w o of them appr ehend[ ed] m e, y es , butw hen w e [w er e] l eavi ng ther e, i tw as thr ee. ” ( A . R . 150. ) T he I J di d not acc eptthi s expl anat i on. T h e th ird in c o n sis ten c yin Z h a n g ’s te stim o n yc o n c e rn e d h is o v e ra ll i n v o lv e m e n t in the under gr ound C athol i c C hur ch. T hi s part i cul arpor t i on of Zhang’ s t es t i m onyw asW e not e thatZ hang mi xes the M andar i n and Foo C how di al ect s . T hi s m i ghthave 4 c o n tr i b u t e d t o s o m e o f

th e c o n f u s i o n d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y. In re v iew ing Z h an g ’s t esti m o n y , itis po ssible tha t he d id n o t un d erstan d w h at th e IJ 5 m e a n t b y“ c h u rc h in v o lv e m e n t.” F o r in sta n c e , at th e h e a rin g , Z h a n g d e sc rib e d h is comm uni ty ’ s r el i gi ous gather i ngs i n s om e det ai l , w hi l e atthe s ame t i m e i ns i s t i ng that there w as n o ch u rch in h is vil lage . H o w ev er, ev en as Z h an g stru g g led w ith the IJ’s chur ch- r el at ed ques t i ons , hi s w i fe ( L i n) had l i t t l e tr oubl e fol l ow i ng a s i m i l arl i ne of ques t i oni ng. T he tr ans cr i ptfr om the I J ’ s or al deci s i on m ent i ons tw o chur ches thatw er e not 6 o th e rwi s e me n t i o n e d i n th e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e c o r d

— “ Yu n g Vi l l a g e Ch u r c h ” a n d “ Ya n g Yi V i l l age Churc h. ” The I J al s o r efe r s t o “Li anj i ang C athol i c C hur ch, ” w hi ch w as di s cus s ed d u rin g th e p e tit io n e rs’ h e a rin g . T h is c o n f u sio n m a yh a v e b e e n th e p ro d u c t o f lin g u istic diffi cult i es, transcr i pti on err ors, or both. Iti s non et heles s not fat al t o the I J’ s adverse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, w hi ch i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . 8 vi r tual l yi ncompre hens i bl e; how ever , w e have der i ved the fol l ow i ng bas i c fa ct s . Z hang 4 a n d h is w if

e a c tiv e lyp a rticip a ted in a n u n d e rg ro u n d c h u rc h c o m m u n ity , w h ich g e n e ra lly c o n g re g a ted in p riv a te h o m e s a n d w a s u n o f f icia llyn a m e d “ L ian

jian g .” T h e ir part i ci pat i on i n t hi s gr oup i s w hatl ed t o thei ral l eged pe r s ecut i on and Zhang’ s arr es t . T he coupl e al s o on r ar e occ as i ons w entt o a form al under gr ound chur ch named “Y angw ei V ill a g e C h u rc h .” T h is c h u rc h m a in tain e d a p h y sic a l b u ild in g a n d is w h e re Z h a n g a n d L in w ere m arried. T h e IJ c o n clud ed that the o v era ll leve l of co n fu sion in this pa rto f Z h an g ’s 5 t e s t i m o n y u n d e rm i n e d h i s c r e d i b i l i ty. 6 T he fi nal tw o i ncons i s t enci es di s cus s ed i n the I J ’ s opi ni on w er e r el at ed t o the N ovember2004 i nci dent . T o r epea t , thi s i nci dentfol l ow ed Zhang’ s deci s i on t o pr ovi de r efuge t o a pr i es ti n hi s hom e, aft erw hi ch the pet i t i oner s w er e for ced t o fl ee thei rvi l l age ( and, l at er , the countr yi t s el f) . T urni ng fi r s tt o a s i m pl e i ncons i s t ency , the I J not ed thatA t th e h e a ri n g , th e IJ a s k e d w h e th e r “ th e p ri e s t th a t is s u e d y o u th is c e rt if ic a te . . . 7 kn[e] w thaty ou w er e arr es t ed i n M ayof 2003. ” ( A . R . 144. ) Z hang r epl i ed, “Y es , he kn ew . . . . ” (A . R . 14 4. ) Th e IJ foll ow ed u p b yaski ng , “D i d y ou kn ow that the p ri est does n’ tm ake a nym ent i on of thatatal l i n hi s l ett er ?” ( A . R . 144. ) Z hang s i m pl yr epl i ed w i th a ques t i on, “H e di dn’ tw r i t e that ?” ( A . R . 144. ) Z hang off er ed no further expl anat i on forthe pr i es t ’ s om i s s i on. In a d d iti o n , w h e n th e IJ e x p lo re d Z h a n g ’s a c c o u n t o f th e N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 in c id e n t, th e IJ a s k e d w h e th e r Z h a n g p ro v id e d a n a f f id a v it f ro m a f ri e n d , h is u n c le , o r t h e p ri e s t. Z h a n g re sp o n d e d th a t th e “ [ p ]rie st iss u e [ d ] a c e rtific a te.” (A .R . 1 4 6 -4 7 .) W e tak e th is re sp o n se a s re f

e rrin g to th e sa m e p rie st le tter n o ted a b o v e , as it ap p e a rs to b e th e o n ly aff i davi tpr ovi ded bya pr i es ti n t hi s cas e. I nt er es t i ngl y , ther e i s no m ent i on of the N ovember2004 i nci denti n t hatl ett er . A tthe hea r i ng, the I J as ked, “A r e y ou aw ar e that thi s cert i fi cat e i s s ued bythe pr i es tm akes no m ent i on of th[e] [N ovember2004] in c id e n t? ” (A .R . 1 4 7 .) Z h a n g a n s w e re d , “ H u h ? I d id n o t k n o w .” (A .R . 1 4 7 .) 9 Z hang off

er ed contr adi ct orydat es forthi s i nci denti n hi s w r i t t en s t at ementand or al t es t i m ony . I n Z hang’ s w r i t t en s t at ement , the s econd c hur ch- r el at ed i nci dentw as dat ed A p ril 2 0 0 5 ; h o w e v e r, in h is o ra l tes tim o n y , h e c laim e d th a t th e sa m e e v e n t to o k p lac e in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 . A t th e h e a rin g , Z h a n g c o u ld n o t p ro v id e a n e x p lan a tio n f o r th is i n c o n s i s t e n c y. T he fi nal i ncons i s t encyi nvol ved a l ett erfr om a C hi nes e pr i es tthatw as s ubm i t t ed bythe pet i t i oner s . B as ed on Zhang’ s t es t i m ony , the I J as s um ed thatthi s l ett erw as fr om the p ri est i n v o lved in the N o v em b er 2 0 0 4 incid en t. A fter rev iew ing the re co rd, w e a re n o t c e rt a in th a t th is is th e c a s e , a lth o u g h it w a s re a s o n a b le f o r t h e IJ to c o n c lu d e a s m u c h . R egar dl es s w hetheri tw as the s ame pr i es torj us tanotherl ocal cl er gym an, the l ett erfai l ed to m en ti o n eith er the M ay2 0 0 3 arrest (w h ich th e p ri est k n ew ab o u t, ac co rdin g to Z h an g ’s test im o n y ) or the N o v em b er 2 0 0 4 incid en t ( in w h ich th e p ri est m ayh av e b ee n inv o lved ). 7 I ns t ead of

di s cus s i ng thes e i nci dent s , the pr i es tm ent i oned the gene r al per s ecut i on ofN e v e rt h e le s s , th e IJ c o n c e d e d th a t “ th e la w is f lu id in th is a re a a n d it m a yc h a n g e . . . 8 if th e re s p o n d e n t w e re to ta k e a n a p p e a l o f m yd e c is io n .” (A .R . 6 8 .) T he B I A al s o ci t ed Mat t erof J- W - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 185 ( B I A 2007) . T her e, the 9 p eti ti o n er left C h ina, m arried, an d fa there d tw o ch il d ren w h il e in th e U n it ed S tat es. L ater, 10 C athol i cs i n C hi na, t ouchi ng on how “r el i gi ous fr eedom . . . i s l i m i t ed, ” “nuns [w er e] d an g ero u s[ly ] . . . p u rsu[ ed ], ” “ ch u rch es [ w ere ] . . . d estroy ed , ” a n d “p ri ests w ere a rr e s te d .” (A .R . 5 4 3 .) I n the end, ther e i s l i t t l e doubtthatthi s cas e pr es ent s atl eas tbor der l i ne i nco nsi st encies . W ere w e revi ew i ng the IJ’ s fi nd i ng s de novo , w e mi ghthave r eac hed di ffe r entconcl us i ons abouts om e of thes e i ncons i s t enci es . N everthel es s , the s heer nu m ber of inconsi st encies (i ncludi ng a few that go t o the heartof the peti t i on ers ’ cl ai m s) s uppor tthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. Fur therm or e, appl y i ng the def er ent i al s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatw e ar e compel l ed t o overturn the I J ’ s fi ndi ng. B. T urni ng t o t he pet i t i oner s ’ U . S. - bi r th cl ai m , the I J hel d that“as a ma t t e ro f la w . . . th e c o n c e p t o f

h a v in g a se c o n d c h ild in th e U n ited S tate s a t th is tim e in th e T h ird C irc u it

. . . i s nota r ecogni zed l egal theory . ” ( A . R . 68 ( emphasi s added) . ) T he B I A agr eed, 8 concl udi ng thatthe pet i t i oner s w er e “notel i gi bl e forr el i ef ba s ed on the bi r th of chi l dr en i n the U ni t ed St at es . ” ( A . R . 2. ) I n s o hol di ng, the I J r el i ed on M a t t e ro f C- C- , 2 3 I . & N. D ec. 899 ( B I A 2006) , and ournotpr ece dent i al opi ni on i n Q iu v . A tto rn e y G e n e ra l. , 224 F. A pp’ x 156 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e conc l ude thatboth the I J and B I A m i s r ead c ontr ol l i ng 9he ar gued that , i f for ced t o r eturn t o C hi na, he w oul d be per s ecut ed forboth vi ol at i ng

C h ina’s F am il yP lann ing P o li cyan d d ep arti n g il lega ll y . T h e B IA rejected the p eti ti o n er’s argum ents and den i ed h i m rel i ef. N evertheles s, i tdid not forecl ose U . S . -bi rth clai m s as a m att erof l aw . I ns t ead, the B I A m ade a cas e- s peci fi c det erm i nat i on, bas ed on the e v id e n c e p re s e n te d b yth e p e titio n e r. I n d e e d , M at t erof J- W - S- w as deci ded fol l ow i ng a r emand or derfr om the Second Ci r cui t . T hi s or derdi r ect ed the B I A “s peci fi cal l y[t o] addr es s al l of the evi dence i n t he r ecor d and expl ai n the bas i s for[i t s ] concl us i on thatt he a p p lica n t d o e s n o t h a v e a n o b jec tiv e lyw e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f ste riliza tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is oppos i t i on t o C hi na’ s one- chi l d pol i cyi f he i s r emoved t o C hi na. ” I d. at187 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). F o ll o w ing the S ec o n d C ir cu it ’s i n stru cti o n s, the B IA concl uded as fol l ow s : “H avi ng cons i der ed a llof the r el evantevi dence , w e fi nd thatthe S tat e D ep artm en t r ep o rt s are m o re p ersu asiv e tha n the [ ev iden ce o ff ere d b ythe p eti ti o n er] i n det erm i ni ng the cha nces thatthe appl i cantw i l l be s t er i l i zed i f he r eturns t o C hi na. ” I d. at 19 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 11 pr ece denti n t hi s ar ea. W e have neverhel d t hata C hi nes e pet i t i oneri s pr ecl uded, as a mat t erof l aw , fr om ar gui ng a fe arof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed on the bi r th of a c hi l d w hi l e i n the U ni t ed S tate s. In ste a d , w e h a v e p ro v id e d th e sa m e c a se -b y -c a se a n a ly sis in th e U .S .-b irth cont extas w e have w hen addr es s i ng otherper s ecut i on cl ai m s . A s s uch, even i n cas es w h e re p a st p e rse c u tio n h a s n o t b e e n e sta b lish e d (a s in th e c u rre n t ca se ), an a lien c a n still demonstr at e a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on bys how i ng thathe has a “ge nui ne f e a r,” a n d th a t a “ re a so n a b le p e rso n in [ h is] c irc u m sta n c e s w o u ld f e a r p e rse c u tio n if r eturned t o [hi s ] nat i ve countr y . ” A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). F o ll o w ing this ap p roa ch , a C h ines e a li en w ith tw o o r m o re c h il d ren (w h ethe r bo rn i n the U ni t ed St at es orel s ew her e) m ayqual i fyas a r efuge e i f the evi dence pr es ent ed es t abl i s hes : ( 1) thatthe bi r ths vi ol at e l ocal fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es ; and ( 2) thatl ocal12

e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e p o lic ie s is d o n e th ro u g h a c ts th a t a m o u n t to p e rs e c u tio n . See , e. g. , Mat t erof

J- H - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 196, 197- 98 ( B I A 2007) ( concl udi ng that“an a l i en w ho h a s e sta b lish e d th a t h e o r sh e h a s h a d tw o c h ild re n in C h in a m a y q u a lifya s a re f u g e e if th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted e sta b lish e s, o n a c a se -b y -c a se b a sis , tha t th e b irth s v io late d f a m ily pl anni ng pol i ci es i n t hatal i en’ s l ocal pr ovi nce . . . and that. . . l ocal fami l ypl anni ng enfor cement. . . w oul d gi ve r i s e t o a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on beca us e of the v io latio n ” ); s e e a l

s o Ma t t e ro

f S- Y- G- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 247, 251 ( B I A 2007) ( det erm i ni ng th a t, ev e n w h e n th e se c o n d c h ild w a s b o rn in th e U n ited S tate s, th e tw o -p ro n g ru le in Mat t erof

J- H - S- rem ains the g u iding au tho ri ty ). T he Second Ci r cui tC our tcons i der ed a s i m i l arques t i on i n G uo v. G onz al es , 463 F. 3d 109 ( 2d C i r . 2006) . T her e, the pet i t i onerappl i ed foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of rem o v al on the b asis that sh e w o u ld b e f o rciblysteri li ze d as a resu lto f v iolati n g C h ina’s Fam i l yPl anni ng Pol i cy . T he pet i t i oneral l egedl yhad thr ee c hi l dr en; one born i n C hi na, one adopt ed i n C hi na, and a thi r d born i n the U ni t ed St at es . H ow ever , beca us e of s i gni fi canti ncons i s t enci es i n herai rpor ti nt ervi ew , as y l um appl i cat i on, and hea r i ng t es t i m ony , the I J det erm i ned thatG uo w as notcr edi bl e, and herappl i cat i on forr el i ef w as d en ied. Y ea rs l ater, sh e f il ed a m o ti o n to reo p en to ap p lyfo r C A T reli ef , w h ich th e B IA rejected . S h e a g ain f

il ed a m o ti o n to reo p en , this t im e b ase d o n ch an g ed co u n try condi t i ons . T he B I A r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m as w el l . Fol l ow i ng herpet i t i on forr evi ew , the Second C i r cui tC our tr emanded forfur thercons i der at i on of the evi dence , concl udi ng “thatI J s and the B I A have a dutyt o expl i ci t l ycons i deranycountrycondi t i ons evi denceA l s o r el evantt o ourcas e i s thatthe C our tadded that“‘ an appl i cantm aypr evai l on a 10 theo ryof f

utur e persecut i on despit e an IJ’ s adverse cr edibi l i tyrul i ng as t o p ast p e rs e c u tio n , s o l ong as the f actualpr edi cat e of

the appl i cant ’s clai m of f ut ur e per s ecut i on is in d e p e n d e n t o

f th e tes tim o ny th a t th e IJ fo u n d n o t to b e c re d ib le . ’ ” I

d. at114 ( quot i ng P aulv. G onz al es , 4 4 4 F .3 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l)); s ee al s o G uo v . A sh c ro ft , 386 F. 3d 556, 562- 63 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( s t at i ng that“[t ] he l egi t i m acyof an i ni t i al cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on does not. . . j us t i fydeni al of al l s ubs equentappl i cat i ons foras y l um ” and, fur therm or e, an “a dver s e cr edi bi l i ty[det erm i nat i on i s di s connec t ed] f ro m C h in a ’s f

a m ilyp lan n in g p o licy ” ). A c c o rd in g ly , the a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on here i s not necessar i l yfat al t o the pet i t i on ers ’ cl ai m s. T he I J nonethel es s des cr i bed Q iu a s “ [ t] h e le a d in g c a s e .” (A .R . 6 8 .) 11 T he G overnm ent ’ s ci t at i on t o Y u v. A t t or ney G ener al , 5 1 3 F . 3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 8 -49 (3d C ir . 12 20 07 ), i s si m i l arl yun avail i ng , as Yu re p re se n ts n o th in g m o re th a n a c a se -sp e c if ic det erm i nat i on thatthe pet i t i oner s di d notpr es ents uffi ci entevi dence “t o es t abl i s h that there w as a n ati o n al . . . p o li cyo f steril izi n g return ing C h ines e c it izen s w h o h av e m o re than one c hi l d. ” Id . a t3 4 7 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . F u r th e r mo r e , we c o n c lu d e d th a t th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n w a s “ su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e ,” a s its “expl anat i on of w hyi tdeci ded t o cr edi t[St at e D epart m ent ] r eport s over[otherevi dence ] [w a] s w el l r eas oned. ” I d. a t 3 4 9 . 13 s ubm i t t ed byan appl i cantthatm at er i al l ybear s on hi s [orher ] cl ai m . ” Id . at115 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 10 T he I J r eads t oo m uch i nt o Q i u and M a tte ro f C -C -, a n d d o e s n o t ad e q u a tely a d d re s s th e re c o rd e v id e n c e o f f e re d b yth e p e titio n e rs . F ir s t, Q iu i s a notpr ece dent i al o p in io n , s o it is n o t b in d in g a u th o ri ty. S e c o n d , M a t t e ro f C- C- di d notes t abl i s h an 11 iro n c lad ru le a g a in st U .S .-b irth c laim s. In ste a d , itm e re lyh e ld th a t an a lien se e k in g to 12 r eopen r emoval pr ocee di ngs cannotes t abl i s h as y l um el i gi bi l i tybys how i ng thats he gave b ir th to tw o c h ild re n a n d o f f e ri n g o th e rw is e u n p e rs u a s iv e e v id e n c e . S e e Ma t t e ro f C- C- , 2 3 I. & N . at 9 0 3 (“ H a v in g c o n sid e re d a ll o f th e re lev a n t ev id e n c e , w e f in d th a t th e S tate D epart m entr eport s ar e more per s uas i ve than the A i r d aff i davi ti n det erm i ni ng theD r. Jo h n A ird w a s a “ re tired d e m o g ra p h e r” o n w h o se a f f id a v its m a n ysim ilarly 13 s itu a te d p e titio n e rs re lie d . Yu , 5 1 3 F . 3 d at 34 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 14 chanc es thatthe r es pondentw i l l be s t er i l i zed i f s he r eturns t o C hi na. ”) . Fi nal l y , even a s 13 the IJ m enti on ed cert ai n p i eces of record evidence in his dis cussi on of the peti t i on ers ’ U . S. - bi r th cl ai m — i n part i cul ar , the 2005 C ountryPr ofi l e fr om the St at e D epart m entand a l ett erfr om the St at e D epart m enton U . S. - bi r th cl ai m s — he conc l uded thathe w as “unfortunat el ycons tr ai ned . . . t o fi nd thatthe [pe t i t i oner s ] as a mat t erof l aw cannot p u rs u e [ th e irU .S .-b ir th c la im ] a t th is tim e .” (A .R . 6 9 .) In th e e n d , n o n e o f

th e c a se s c ited b yth e IJ, B IA , o r G o v e rn m e n t b ro a d ly concl udes thatthe pet i t i oner s ’ U . S. - bi r th cl ai m w as for ecl os ed as a mat t erof l aw , ort hat futur e pet i t i oner s w oul d be barr ed fr om us i ng di ffe r entevi dence t o es t abl i s h as y l um e lig ib ili tyo n sim ilar g ro u n d s. T h is is tru e e v e n a s w e re c o g n ize th a t M a tter o f C -C - has seta high ba r foranypeti t i on er purs uing a U . S . -bi rth clai m . N on et heles s, the IJ m ust c o n sid e r a ll o f

th e re lev a n t ev id e n c e in th e re c o rd b e f o re re jec tin g it. * * * * * F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , w e g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i n p a r ta n d d e n yi ti n p a r t . We affirm the IJ’ s adverse cr edibi l i tydeterm i nati on . H ow ever, w e rej ectthe IJ’ s ( and B IA ’s ) concl us i on thatthe pet i t i oner s ’ U . S. - bi r th cl ai m w as for ecl os ed as a mat t erof l aw , and thus r emand t o t he I J forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.