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 Thir d C ir c uit 9-29-2009 

# W 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 . 08-3038

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_2009

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 2009 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 " W an g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 588. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/5881 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- 3038

___________ XI U J U WANG, Pet i t i oner

vs. 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 99- 023- 674) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

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

Sept ember28, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

(O p inion fil ed : Se p tem b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Pet i t i oner , X i u J u W ang, s eeks r evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyher2

p e titio n . I.

W ang i s t w enty - t w o y ear s ol d and i s a ci t i zen of C hi na. W ang ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es unl aw ful l yi n O ct ober2005 and w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . W ang app l i ed fo r as y l um , w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e ( “C A T ”) on t he gr ound t hats he w oul d fac e per s ecut i on i n C hi na on ac countof heroppos i t i on t o t he governm ent ’ s pol i ci es t ow ar d Fal un G ong.

A therr emoval hear i ng, W ang t es t i fi ed that , befor e comi ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es , s he had w or ked as a pr oofr eade ri n a pr i nt i ng s hop i n C hi na. W ang l i ved i n a d o rm ito rya t th e sh o p . A c c o rd in g to W a n g , o n A p ril 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , h e r b o ss a sk e d h e r to pr oofr ead a pi ece of Fal un G ong pr opaganda . W ang t es t i fi ed thats he agr eed t o pr oofr ead th e a rt ic le a s in s tru c te d e v e n th o u g h s h e d o e s n o t p ra c tic e F a lu n G o n g .

W ang furt hert es t i fi ed that , l at erthatni ght , aft ers he had c om pl et ed her w or k and had r et i r ed t o herr oom , C hi nes e author i t i es r ai ded the s hop. W ang expl ai ned t hat s he w as abl e t o escap e t hroug h a b ack d oo r, bu tl eftbeh i nd al l of h er bel on gings, inclu d ing a p erso n al diaryin w h ich s h e h ad v o iced h er o p p o sit ion to the g o v ern m en t’ s tre a tm e n t o f

F a lu n G o n g p ra c tit io n e rs. A f ter f lee in g th e p rin t sh o p , W a n g w a s a f ra id to go hom e, s o s he w entt o s t ayw i t h a r el at i ve. W ang l at erl earned thatfi ve of he r col l eague s fr om t he pr i nts hop had bee n arr es t ed and thatthe s hop had bee n s eal ed off by t he p oli ce. W ang t est i fi ed that , t w o d ay s aft er the rai d, po l i ce app eared ather parent s’3

hom e w i t h a w arr antforherarr es t . A ccor di ng t o W ang, author i t i es l at err eturned on s ever al occa s i ons l ooki ng forher . I n s uppor tof herappl i cat i on, W ang s ubm i t t ed s ever al a f f id a v its , in c lu d in g a n a f

f id a v it f ro m h e r c o u s in w h o a ls o w o rk e d a t th e p ri n tin g p re s s . W ang cl ai m ed thati f s he w er e for ced t o r eturn t o C hi na, s he w oul d be arr es t ed forthe o p i n i o n s s h e e x p r e s s e d i n h e rd i a r y.

A tt he end of

t he hea r i ng, the I J as ked W ang’ s at t orneyt o cl ar i fythe gr ounds on w hi ch W ang w as s eeki ng as y l um . C ouns el expl ai ned thatW ang fe ar ed p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of h er p o li ti ca l op inion , that is, h er o p p o sit ion to the g o v ern m en t’ s pol i ci es t ow ar d Fal un G ong. C ouns el fur t herexpl ai ned thatthe governm entl earned of W an g ’s po li ti ca l op inion thro u g h the d iarythat theyco n fisca ted d u ri n g the ra id. T h e IJ th e n p o in ted o u t th a t W a n g f a iled to m e n tio n th e d iar y— th e v e ryitem th a t p u t h e r in danger

— i n heri ni t i al appl i cat i on, and as ked W ang t o expl ai n w hys he w oul d om i ts uch a c ru c ial p iec e o f

th e sto ry . W a n g sta ted th a t sh e d id n o t re a lize th a t itw a s im p o rta n t to m e n tio n th e d ia ry in th e a p p lic a tio n .

Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, the I J found thatW ang’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e, pri m ari l ybecau se of h er fai l ure t o m enti on the d i aryi n h er i nit i al app l i cat i on . T he IJ al so doubt ed W ang’ s t heoryt hatt he pol i ce mi ghthave be en s ear chi ng forW ang due t o her empl oym entatthe pr i nt i ng pr es s al one— r egar dl es s of the exi s t ence of the di ary— beca us e hercous i n, w ho al s o w or ked atthe pr es s , w as nevercont act ed bythe pol i ce. Fort hes e r eas ons , t he I J concl uded thatW ang fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - foundedW e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval pur s uant 1 to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). 4 fea rof futur e per s ecut i on and deni ed herappl i cat i on foras y l um . T he I J al s o deni ed her a p p lic a tio n s f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C A T . T h e B IA a f f ir m e d . W an g n o w p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s ord er. 1 II. T h e p rim a ryiss u e p re se n ted b yth is a p p e a l is w h e th e r th e B IA e rre d in u p h o lding the IJ’s a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination . W h en , as in this case , the B IA su b sta n tiallyre lies o n a n IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n , this C o u rt “ m u st lo o k to bot h deci s i ons i n or dert o s at i s fy[i t s ] obl i gat i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) t o r evi ew t he admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i on m eani ngful l y . ” H e C hun C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A n adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng i s r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi dence and m us tbe uphel d unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 322 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . T hus , w e mustaff or d t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng “s ubs t ant i al defe r ence s o l ong as t he fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys uffi ci entcogentr eas ons . ” B ut tv. G o n za les, 4 2 9 F . 3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

B eca us e W ang fi l ed herappl i cat i on forr el i ef a ft erthe ena ctm entof the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, t he I J ’ s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on i s governed bythe A ct . See C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). U n d er the R E A L ID A ct, an IJA l t hough t he B I A s t at ed thatthe I J al s o found thatW ang’ s s t oryw as 2 i m pl aus i bl e, w e r ead the I J ’ s opi ni on as r es ervi ng deci s i on on t hatbas i s . ( O r al D eci s i on, M arc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , 1 5 -16 . ) 5 m aybas e hercr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on on obs ervat i ons of the appl i cant ’ s demeanor , t he p la u s ib ility o f

th e p e titio n e r’ s s to ry, a n d o n th e c o n s is te n c yo f th e p e titio n e r’ s s ta te m e n ts . See I N A § 208( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ; G abuni y a v. A t t orneyG ener al , 463 F. 3d 316, 322 n. 7 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s not ed above , i n t hi s cas e, the I J found thatW ang’ s fai l ur e t o m ent i on t he d iar yin h e r a p p lica tio n sig n if ica n tlyu n d e rm in e d th e c re d ib ili tyo f h e r sto ryb e c a u se , in t he I J ’ s vi ew , i tw as t he l ynchpi n of hercl ai m ; w i t houtthe di ary , the pol i ce w oul d have n o re a s o n to b e lie v e th a t W a n g w a s o p p o s e d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s F a lu n G o n g p o lic ie s . U po n revi ew , t he B IA determ i ned t hat there w as no clearerr or i n the I J’ s adverse c re d ib ili tyf

in d in g . B a se d o n o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t a r e a so n a b le 2 a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tra ry . S e e B e rish a j v . A sh c ro f

t, 378 F. 3d at322. W ang’ s fai l ur e t o m ent i on the di aryi n herappl i cat i on cr eat ed a s uffi ci ent l ys i gni fi canti ncons i s t encyt o s uppor tthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. See B ut t , 429 F. 3d at434. A l t hough W ang ar gues on appea l that“the I m m i gr at i on J udge s houl d notm ake a n adver s e i nfer ence on W ang’ s cr edi bi l i t ym er el ybeca us e s he s uppl i ed a d d itio n a l in f

o rm a tio n d u ri n g h e r h e a ri n g to s u p p le m e n t in f o rm a tio n o n h e r I -5 8 9 ,” ( Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef 17- 18) , w e agr ee w i t h t he B I A and I J thatthi s om i s s i on w as r ather s ig n if ic a n t in lig h t o f

th e re la tiv e w e a k n e s s o f W a n g ’s c a s e .G iven that the B IA ’s an d IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination s are

s uppor t ed bys uffi ci ent , cogentr eas ons , w e w i l l defe rt o t hei rfi ndi ngs . See B ut t , 429 F .3 d a t 4 3 4 . W e th e re f

o re a g re e th a t W a n g f

a ile d to e s ta b lis h e lig ib ility f o r a s y lu m . Fur t herm or e, beca us e W ang’ s cl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C A T ar e bas ed on the s ame evi dence as heras y l um cl ai m , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e d e n ia l o f th e s e c la im s a s w e ll. W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .

6