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

7-8-2010 

# Jin yu Kang v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4790

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Jin yu K a n g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 840. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/840P 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- 4790

J I NYU KA 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 es pondent

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A

- 99- 939- 158) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erA

. D ur l i ng

A r gued M ay26, 2010
B efor e: M cK E E , C hi ef J udge, R E N D E L L and

G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2010)2 M a n C . Y a m , E s q . [ ARGUE D] L aw O ffi ces of B er anr d & Y am 401 B r oadw ay , Sui t e 1708 N ew Y or k, N Y 10013 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner

J o h n W . In k e le s , E s q . [ ARGUE D] U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on 4 5 0 5 t h S t r e e t , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20001 C ouns el f orR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
I n O ct ober 2003, J i nyu K ang, a K or ean c i t i zen of C hi na, w as named i n a C hi n ese arr es tw arr antw i t h t w o ot her ind ividu als, Z h eyu n Jin a n d B ao yu Jin, al l th ree o f w h o m w ere m e m b e rs o f a g r o u p c a lle d th e “ H u m a n R ig h ts O rg a n iz a tio n .” T heyw er e bei ng s ought b y the C hi nes e pol i ce f orpr ovi di ng f o o d a n d sh e lter to N o rth K o re a n re f u g e e s w h o h a d ille g a lly e n te re d C h in a o n th e irw a yto S o u th K o re a . A f te r le a rn in g th a t th e re w a s a w a rra n t f o r h e r a rre st, K a n g f led C h in a a n d ill e g a ll y en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in3 J anuary2004. She w as l at erarr es t ed byt he Phi l adel phi a pol i ce fors ol i cit ati on, butt hos e cha r ges w er e w i t hdr aw n. K ang con c e d e d r e mov a b i l i t yu n d e r8 U. S. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A) ( i ) , b ut ap p li ed fo r asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al un d er 8 U

. S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) on gr ounds of fut ur e per s ecut i on, and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval und er the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”)

. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed K ang’ s pet i t i on for as y l um and h er a p p li ca ti o n fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al ba sed o n fu ture p erse cu tio n , b u t gran ted h er reli ef u n d er C A T

. T h e B IA aff i r m ed exc ept as t o t he C A T cl ai m and ther efor e or der ed K ang r e m o v e d . K a n g h a s f

iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , w h ich w e w ill g ra n t in p a rt.
K ang i s not cont es t i ng t he IJ ’ s or t he B I A ’ s deci s i ons on heras y l um cl ai m , buts he cont ends t hatt he I J and t he B I A err ed in d en y ing h er w ith h o ldin g o f re m o v al ba sed o n fu ture per s ecut i on, and thatt he B I A err ed i n r ever s i ng t he I J ’ s gr antof r el i ef unde rC A T

. W e w i l l gr ant K ang’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew and v a c a te a n d re v e rse th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n h e r C A T c laim beca us e the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. I ns t ead, t he r ecor d compel s t he contr aryconcl us i on, namel y , t hati ti s m or e l i kel y t han not t hatK ang w i l l be t or tur ed if re tu rn e d to C h in a . I

. Pr ocee di ngs B efor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge
T he I J hel d hear i ngs on K ang’ s cl ai m s on A pr i l 24, 2008, an d M ay21, 2008, and i s s ued a w r i t t en dec i s i on on J une 27, 2008. I n h is w ri t t en dec i s i on, t he I J hel d t hatK ang’ s as y l um cl ai m w as t i m e- barr ed as i tw as notfi l ed w i t hi n 1 y earaft ert he d a te o f h e r a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S t a te s . 8 U .S .C . §4 1158( a) ( 2) ( B )

. O n appea l , K ang does notchal l enge thi s rul i ng. T he I J al s o deni ed w it h h o lding of r emoval on t he gr ound of futur e persecut i on un der § 12 31 (b) (3)

. W e need no tadd res s K an g ’s claim fo r w ith h o ldin g o f re m o v al ba sed o n fu ture p e rs e c u tio n b e c a u s e w e g ra n t h e r r e lie f u n d e r C A T

. K ang pr es ent ed ext ens i ve evi dence i n s uppor tof her ap p li cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval underC A T

. She s u b mi t t e d a f

f i d a v i t s f r o m Z h e yu n J i n a n d Ba o yu J i n , t h e t wo o th e r indivi du al s nam ed w i t h h er i n the ar res tw arr ant. B oth Z h eyu n Jin an d B ao yu Jin rec o u n ted in d etail that theyw ere s ubj ect ed t o abus e byC hi nes e off i ci al s w hi l e bei ng i nt err ogat ed a b o u t th e lo c a ti o n s o f o th e r p e o p le in v o lv e d in th e ir o rg a n iz a tio n . Zh e yu n J i n s t a t e d t h a t , wh i l e i n t e r r o g a t i n g h i m, a u th o rities b e a t h im w ith p o lice c lu b s, p u t b a g s o v e r his h e a d to o b stru c t h is b re a th in g , p o u re d c o ld w a ter o v e r h im , p u lled h is h a ir, fo rc e d h im to k n e e l f o r h o u rs, w h ip p e d th e so les o f h is f e e t, sl app ed hi m un t i l his face w as sw oll en and “b lo o d [ w as] s t r eami ng dow n, ” depr i ved him o f sl eep, and t i ed hi m “t o t he r ai l i ng w i t h [hi s ] hands att he bac k and [hi s ] fee t hangi ng i n t he ai r , ” t o t he poi ntt hat hi s arm s w er e “a l m os tbr oken. ” A pp. 614.

B aoyu J i n st at ed thatas partof h er i nterrogat i on , C hinese author it ie s depr i ved herof s l eep t o t he poi ntt hathervi s i on det er i or at ed, and they obs t ruct ed her br eathi ng byput t i ng bags ov er herhead , causi ng her to fai nt s everal t i m es. B aoyu Ji n als o s t at ed:5 T heyhung m e on the aw ni ng, w i th m yhands on th e b a c k , an d sh o t stro n g lig h t b e a m d ire c tlyin to mye y e s . I c o u l d n o t e v e n o p e n my e y e s , a n d my t ear s comi ng dow n. Such pai nful exper i ence w as b e y o n d wo r d s . Af

t e r I wa s h u n g u p , t h e t i p o f my to e c o u ld h a r d ly to u c h th e g ro u n d . W h e n I f e lt tired , a n d w ish e d to sta n d o n th e h e e l o f m yf e e t, m yw rists f

e lt g re a t p a in . N o w b o th o f m yw rists are sw ell i ng and ca n notexerts t r ength. T he pol i c e a l s o c u f

f e d b o t h myh a n d s t o a p i e c e of heat i ng uni t , and us e the el ectr i c cl ub t o t ouch the h e a t i n g p i e c e . Th e e l e c t r i c c u r r e n tf l e w t h r ough m ybody , and I fel tverypai nful

. I s t i l l di d nots ay anyt hi ng. A p p . 6 1 8

. A tthe IJ’s hear i ng, K ang al s o offe r ed the t es t i m onyof S t even K i m , a U nit ed S t at es c iti z e n d et ai ned byt he C hinese author i t i es for48 m ont hs forhel pi ng N or t h K or ean r efuge es en te rC hi na i l l egal l y . K i m t es t i fi ed thathe w as s par ed fr om bei ng beat en w hi l e i n cus t ody onl y beca us e he w as an A m er i can a n d t h e Ch i n e s e o f

f i c i a l s we r e a f

r a i d t h a ti f

t h e ymi s t r e a t e d h i m, he w oul d t el l t he A m erican cons ul arr epr es ent at i ve dur i ng t he r epr es ent at i ve’ s m ont hl yvi s i t s . H ow ever , K i m t es t i fi ed that p ris o n ers w h o w ere d etaine d fo r aiding N o rth K o rea n s w ere h a n d c u f f e d to iro n b a rs a n d f

o rc e d to s ta n d f

o r 4 8 h o u rs a t a t i m e. K i m al s o t est ifi ed t hathar s h t r eatm entw as m et ed out w hen pr i s oner s gave uns at i s fac t or yans w er s t o ques t i ons about t he ef for tt o as s i s tt he N or t h K or ean r efuge es , i ncl udi ng ques t i ons aboutt hei rper s onal conduct and aboutt he i dent i t i es6 and conduc tof other s i nvol ved. K i m s t at ed t hathe had s poken w i t h a p ri soner w ho , aft er re f usi ng t o an sw er these qu est i on s, had bee n beat en, r es t r ai ned, s hocked w i t h el ectr i ci t y , and depr i ved of s l eep for 48 hour s ata t i m e. K i m s aw t he s car s on t hat pr i soner’ s chestand w ri stres ult i ng f rom t hese be at i ng s. A l ong w i t h hi s t es t i m ony , K ang al s o s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tfr om K im re c itin g s e v e ra l o f

th e s e a lle g a tio n s . D ur i ng her hear i ng befor e t he I J , K ang t es t i fi ed thats he bel i eved she w oul d be i nt err ogat ed and t or tur ed i f s he r etur ned to C h in a b e c a u se sh e h a d b e e n a m e m b e r o f th e H u m a n R ig h ts O r gani zat i o n , l e f

tC hi na w i t houtper m i s s i on, and had a ppl i ed for as y l um i n t he U ni t ed S t at es . She s t at ed thatm ember s of her or gani zat i on w ho w er e det ai ned byt he C hi nes e author i t i es report ed thatt heyhad been beaten and t ortured. K ang al so t es t i fi ed t hatt he author i t i es i nt err ogat ed hers on t o l earn her w her eabout s , and thatdur i ng t hi s i nt err o g at i on, he, t oo, w as beat en, ki cked, depr i ved of s l eep for s ever al day s , and det ai ned i n s ol i t aryconfi nement

. T hes e al l egat i ons w er e corr obor at ed by t he cont ent s of an a ffi davi ts ubm i t t ed by K ang’ s s on, w her ei n he s t at ed thataft erK ang fl ed t he countr y , C hi nes e author i t i es d e p riv e d h im o f

sle e p , sla p p e d h im o n th e f a c e , k ick e d h im in th e sto m a c h , an d p u lled h is h a ir w h e n h e re f u se d to a n sw e r th e ir q u e s tio n s a b o u t w h e re h is m o th e r h a d g o n e . A t the he aring , K an g also intr o d u ce d a 20 0 7 C o u n try R epor ton C hi na i s s ued byt he U

. S

. St at e D epart m ent , w hi ch r epor t ed that“ther e cont i nued t o be fr equentr epor t s t hatpol i ce and otherel ement s of the s ecur i t yappar atus em p l oy ed w id e sp re a d to rtu re a n d d e g ra d in g tre a tm e n t w h e n d e a lin g w ith so m e d e tain e e s a n d p riso n e rs.” A p p . 5 0 6

. A lth o u g h to rtu re is7 a g a in st th e law in C h in a , “ th e S u p re m e P e o p le’ s P ro c u ra to ra te ( SPP ) D eputySecr et aryW ang Zhenchuan a cknow l edged t hat i l l egal i nt errog ati on by‘ atr oci ous t or tur e’ exi s t ed i n l ocal ju d ic ia l p ra c tic e th r o u g h o u t C h in a .” Id

. Pr i s oner s r epor t ed b e ing tortu red w ith “e lectri c sh o ck s, b ea ti n g s, sh ac k les,” “s us pensi on fr om t he ce i l i ng by[one’ s ] arm s , ” and be i ng “s hackl ed and f

or ced t o s i ti n extr eme pos i t i ons forext ended per i ods of t i m e. ” A pp. 506- 07. O ne pr i s onerr ecount ed bei ng chai ned t o an i r on bed forday s and anothers t at ed that he w as t i ed t o a “t i ger bench” for four hour s . A pp. 506. W hen us i ng a “ti g er b ench, ” the vi ct i m i s s eat ed on a be nch w i t h “l egs t i ed s t r et ched outs t raigh t o n t he benc h and hands t i ed behi nd a ver t i cal back support

. B r i cks orot herhar d obj ect s ar e then pus hed undert he vi ct i m ’ s l egs or fee t , caus i ng t he l egs t o bend upw ar ds , s om et i m es unt i l they b r eak. ” I d. W h il e the rep o rt s t at ed thatt or tur e w as “on a de cl i ne- - par ti cul ar l yi n urban ar eas , ” i ts t i l l not ed thatt or tur e “r emai ned w i des pr ead, and that pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve mea s ur es w er e i nadequa t e t o pr event t or tur e. ” A pp. 507. D es pi t e C hi nes e cour t s “i s s u[i ng] di r ect i ves t o el i m i nat e i nt err ogat i on t hr ough t or tur e” i n 2006, t her e w as an 8. 3% i ncr eas e i n cas es of “der el i ct i on of dutyand i nfr i ngement o f ri g h ts b yo f

f ic ia ls ” f ro m 2 0 0 6 to 2 0 0 7

. I

d. Th e I J g r a n t e d wi t h h o l di ng o f r e mov a l u n d e rCA T, concl udi ng t hat“[t ] he over al l rec or d evi dence m or e than s ugges t s t hat[K ang’ s ] fea r s o f l i k e l ypr os pect i ve t or tur e thr ough t he i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng w hi l e i n t he C h in e s e g o v e rn m e n t’ s c u s to d yo r p h y s ic a l c o n tr o l h a s m e ri t.” A p p . 3 2 5

. A lth o u g h the IJ sp ec ifi ca ll y c it ed o n lyK im ’s t es t i m ony and t he C ount r y R epor t , i ti s cl eart hathe cons i der edT he I J not ed a “di s connec t betw een [ K ang’ s ] t es t i m ony 1 and the i nfor m at i on i n t he arr es tw arr ant ” (sp ec if i cal l y , an i ncons i s t encybetw een the dat e t he ar r es tw arr antw as i s s ued and the d ate K a n g tes ti fied that sh e lea rne d o f th e a rrest w arran t) , but, d espi t e not i ng t hatt her e w as “conf us i on” s ur r oundi ng t he arr es tw arr ant , he di d notm ake a n adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. A p p . 3 2 1

. “W e ha v e sev era l t im es a ff irm ed the ru le th at w h ere a n I J o rt h e BI A f

a i l s t o ma k e a n e x p l i c i tc r e d i b i l i t yf i n d i n g , we w ill p ro c e e d a s if

th e a p p lic a n t’ s te s t i m o n yw e re c re d ib le .” Toure v. A t t ’

y G en. , 4 4 3 F

. 3 d 3 1 0 , 3 2 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).

8 t he r ecor d as a w hol e bef or e r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on. 1
I I

. T he B I A ’ s R ul i ng T he G overnm ent appea l ed t he IJ ’ s gr antof w i t hhol di ng of r emoval under C A T , and K ang cr os s - appea l ed the deni al of asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f rem o v al un d er § 1 2 3 1

. T h e B IA aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of as y l um and w i t hh o l di ng of r emoval under§ 1231, and r ever s ed the I J ’ s gr antof w i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l u n d e r C A T

. W i t h r es pectt o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval underC A T , t he B IA co n clud ed that the “ IJ erred in d eterm ining that itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t [ K a n g ] w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re tu rn e d to C hi na. ” A p p . 2 4

. T h e B IA d eterm ined that the C o u n tryR ep o rt w as n o t persu asiv e b ec au se, w h il e itstat ed that there are fr equent repor t s of t or tur e i n C hi na, i t“does noti ndi cat e that t hos e i m pr i s oned fors m uggl i ng w er e s peci fi cal l yatr i s k or r out i nel ys ubj ect ed t o t or tur e. ” Id

. T h e B IA d esc ri b ed K im ’s9 t es t i m onyas s t at i ng “that s o m e peopl e w er e bea t en byot her i nm at es and guar ds , chai ned forpr ol ong ed per i ods , and s ubj ect ed t o s ever e condi t i ons and i nt err ogat i ons , ” and de ci ded t hat“[a ] l t hough condi t i ons i n C hi nes e pr i s ons m aybe har s h, and i nci dent s of t or tur e mayoccur , w e fi nd t hatt he r es pondenthas fai l ed t o demonst r at e thati ti s m or e l i kel y t han nott hats he w o u ld b e su b

jected to tr ea tm en t sp ec ifi ca ll y inten d ed to torture herw hi l e i m pr i s oned. ” Id

. T he B IA al so st at ed that “[t ]he r ecord d oes no test abli sh t hatt he C hi nes e author i t i es us e t or tur e as a mat t erof pol i cy , and t he C ount r yR epor ti ndi cat es t hat t he i nci dent s of t or tur e ar e on th e d e c lin e a n d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is tak in g ste p s to e lim in a te i nt err ogat i on t hr ough t or tur e. ” A pp. 25. T he B IA t hus concl uded that“t h e res pondenthas fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatt he seve re in st ances o f m i streatm ent foun d in the record are so pervasi ve as t o est abli sh t hat a pers on detai ned i n a C hinese pr i s on w i l l be more l i k ely than notbe s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e, as oppos ed t o ot her act s of puni s hm entort r eatm ent , w hi ch do not amount t o t or tur e. ” I

d.
In its d e c isi o n , th e B IA sp e c if ica llyre f

e rre d o n lyto K im ’s te stim o n ya n d th e C o u n try R e p o rt. T h e B IA c o m p lete ly i gnor ed the r es t of t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he af fi davi t s of Zheyun J in , B a o yu J in , a n d K a n g ’s s o n . I I I

. J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d S t a n d a r d o f Re v i e w T h e B IA h ad juri sd ict ion u n d er 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 1 (b)(3 ). W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under8 U

. S. C

. § 1 2 5 2. B eca us e the10 B IA d id n o t ad o p t o r d ef er to the IJ’s op inion reg ard ing K an g ’s C A T c la im , w e re v ie w o n ly th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . A bdul ai v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. W e r evi ew t he B IA ’s l egal det erm i nati on s de novo , “s ubj ect t o t he pr i nci pl es of [ C hevr on ] defe r ence . ” P i er r e v. A t t ’ y G en . , 528 F. 3d 180, 184 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 )

. W h ile o u r re v iew o f th e B IA ’s d e c isio n is defe r ent i al , “def

er ence i s notdue w here fi ndi ngs and concl us i ons ar e bas ed on i nfer ence s orpr es um pt i ons t hatar e not re a s o n a b ly g ro u n d e d i n th e re c o rd , v ie w e d a s a w h o le .” V aldi vi ez o- G aldam ezv. A t t ’ y G en. , 5 0 2 F

. 3 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e B IA m a y n o t ig n o re e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t f

a v o rs th e p e titio n e r. Esp ino sa -C o rtez v. A tt ’y G en . , _ F

. 3 d

_ , N o . 0 8 -41 7 0 , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 1 7 9 1 9 5 at *1 1 (3d C ir

. J une 2, 2010)

. T o r ever s e t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng w e mustfi nd t hat th e e v id e n c e “ c o m p e l s ” a d if f e re n t r e s u lt. IN

S v. E l i asZacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). [T]he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i ons w i l l be uphel d i f they ar e s uppor t ed byr eas o n abl e, s ubs t ant i al , and probati ve ev i den ce i n the r ecord co nsi dered as a w hol e. U ndert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, t he B IA ’s determ in at i on s m ustbe u ph el d u nles s the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary con cl usi on , bu tcom pels i t

. H ow e ver, as j ust su g g e ste d , th e B IA m u st su b sta n tiat e its deci s i ons . W e w i l l not acc or d t he B I A defe r ence w her e i t s fi ndi ngs and concl us i ons ar e bas ed on in f e re n c es or pr esum p tio n s th a t ar e n o t re a so n a b ly gr ounded i n t he r ecor d. Sher i f f v. A t t ’ y G en . , 587 F. 3d 584, 589 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal11 q u o ta tio n m a rk s , a lte ra tio n s , a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
H er e, t he B I A r evi ew ed the I J ’ s gr antof C A T r el i ef de novo . T h e BI A’ s ru l i n g i n t h i s c a s e wa s i s s u e d b e f o r e we deci ded Kapl un v. A t t or ney G ener al , 6 0 2 F

. 3 d 2 6 0 (3 d C ir

. 2010) , w her e w e s etfor t h a tw o- par t s t andar d of r evi ew fort he BI A t o a p p l y i n r e v i e wi n g a n I J ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f a CAT c l a i m. Kapl un hel d t hatt he B I A s houl d r evi ew t he IJ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i on of the l i kel i hood of m i s t r eatm entun d er a cl ear err or s t andar d, and s houl d appl ya de novo s t andar d of r evi ew as to w h e th e r t h e m is tr e a tm e n t w o u ld le g a lly c o n s titu te to rt u re . I d. at 27 2

. T h e ref

o re, t o rev erse the IJ’s ru li n g u n d er Kapl un , t he B IA w o u ld h a v e to c o n c lu d e e ith e r th a t th e IJ c lea rlye rre d in d e ter m in in g th e lik e lih o o d th a t K a n g w o u ld b e to rtu re d if r emoved or , undera de novo s t andar d, t hatt he I J ’ s l egal d eterm ination as to tortu re w as w ron g . U n d er Kapl un , w e w ill u p h o ld the B IA ’s rev ersa l of the IJ’s g ran t of

C A T reli ef

if t h ere i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng t he B I A ’ s concl us i on t hatt he I J c l e a r l ye r r e d i n f

i n d i n g a l i k e l i h o o d o f

t o r tu r e , o r i f

we d e ter m in e th a t th e a lleg e d m istre a tm e n t d o e s n o t leg a lly co n sti tute tortu re . C o n v erse ly , w e w il l r ev erse the B IA ’s d eterm ination if t h e e v id e n ce co m p els a f ind ing that itis m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t th e p e titio n e r w ill b e to rt u re d if re m o v e d

. T h e G o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t a re m a n d f o r th e B IA to rev iew the IJ’s d eterm ination u n d er Kapl un is un n ec essa ry beca us e K ang has nots how n a l i kel i hood of t or tur e. W e agr ee t h a ta r e m a n d i s n o t n e c e s s a r y , b u tf o rt h e o p p o s i t e r e a s o n . We hol d t hatthe B I A ’ s r ever s al of the I J , and det erm i nat i on t hat K ang w as not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef under C A T , w as not s uppor t ed by su b sta nti al evidence an d thatt he record com pels t he o pp osi teT h e Co u n t r yRe p o r ts t a t e s t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o a “ UN 2 S pecial R app ort eur, ” “of fi ci al s speci fi cal lyt arget ed fo r abuse hou s e chur ch gr oups , Fal un G ong adher ent s , T i bet ans , and U i gh ur pri soners. ” A pp . 50 7. T his do es n ot i nd i cat e t hat tho se 12 concl us i on ( as a mat t erof fa ctand l aw )

. T h u s, w e n eed not r emand fo r th e B I A t o anal y ze the I J ’ s deci s i on undert he Kapl un s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w. IV

. C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re K an g co n tend s tha t th e B IA erred in rev ersing the IJ’s gr antof w i t hhol di ng under C A T beca us e t he evi dence pr es ent ed b e f o re th e IJ c o m p e lled th e c o n c lu sio n th a t itw a s m o re lik e ly t han n o t t h a t s h e wou l d b e t o r tu r e d i f r e tu r n e d t o Chi n a, and beca us e the B I A ’ s deci s i on t o t he contr ary i s nots uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . W e a g re e . T he G overnm entr es ponds t hatK an g onl ypr ovi ded evi den ce of

s ubs t andar d pr i s on condi t i ons i n C hi na, and

“ m istre a tm e n t” o f

so m e p riso n e rs, w h ich is in su f f icie n t to p rev ail o n a C A T claim

. T h e G o v ern m en t urg es th at th e B IA r el i ed on ce r t ai n fac tual fi ndi ngs by t he I J , i ncl udi ng t he fa ctt hat K im w a s n o t to rtu re d d e sp ite b e in g c o n v icte d o f a id in g N o rth K orean re f

u g e es, and t hat K i m t est i fi ed “thaton l yt ho se p ri s o n e rs w h o b ro k e th e p ri s o n ru le s w e re m is tr e a te d .” R es pondent ’ s B r . at25. Add i t i o nal l y , t he G overnm entdes cr i bes t he C ount r yR epor tas s t at i ng “that peopl e ar r es t ed forharbor i ng ill e g a l alie n s w e r e n o t am o n g st th e g ro u p s m o st p ro n e to m is tr e a tm e n t.” I

d. 2arr es t ed forai di ng N or t h K or eans ar e unl i kel yt o be t or tur ed. I n A u g u ste and Fra n c o is , t he pet i t i oner s pr ovi ded 3 evi dence of depl or abl e pr i so n condi t i ons i n H ai t i as w el l as beati ng s of pri soners by gu ards. W e rej ect ed the p et i t i on ers ’ c l a i ms t h a tt h e ywe r e e n t i t l e d t o wi t h h o l d i n g u n d e rCA T b ec au se th ere w as n o rea so n to b eli ev e tha t th e p eti ti o n ers w ere e s p e c ia lly lik e ly to b e ta rg e te d f o r m i s t re a tm e n t. P i erre , 528 F .3 d a t 1 8 3 , 1 8 9 . T h e d e f icie n c yin th e p e titio n e rs’ c laim s in A u g u s te and Fra n c o is w as t hatt heycoul d nots how that

“ H a iti a n o f

f icia ls w ill h a v e th e p u rp o se o f in f lictin g se v e re p a in o r suf fe ri n g b yp lacing [th e p eti ti o n ers] in de tention u p o n [th eir] r emoval fr om t he U n it ed St at es . ” P i erre , 5 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 9 0 ; s ee a lso A u g u ste , 3 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 5 3 -5 4 ; Fra n c o is , 448 F. 3d at651- 52. 13 T he G overnm ent al s o not es t hati n P i erre , 528 F. 3d at 1 8 9 , w e h e ld th a t C A T “ re q u ire s a p e tit io n e r to sh o w th a t h is prospecti ve tor tu rerw i l l hav e t he m oti ve o r purpose t o cau se hi m pai n or s uffe r i ng, ” and ar gues t hatt he I J di d notm ake a ny fac tual f indi ngs t hatw oul d s uppor ta det erm i nat i on of s uch

“ sp e c if ic in ten t.” R e sp o n d e n t’s S u p p . B r. a t 4 -5

. A c c o rd in g to th e G o v e rn m e n t, K a n g “ f a il e d to m a k e a sh o w in g o f sp e c if ic in te n t to in f

lic t p a in a n d s u f

f e ri n g u p o n h e r.” I

d. at7. I ns t ead, th e G o v e rn m e n t cla im s th a t K a n g ’s a lleg a tio n s a r e sim ilar to cl a i ms t h a twe r e

j e c t e d i n t wo o t h e rc a s e s i n v o l v i n g p r i s on co n d it io n s--A ugus t e v. R i dge , 3 9 5 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 4 6 -47 (3d C ir

. 2005) , and Fr ancois v. G onz al es , 4 4 8 F

. 3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 1 (3d C ir

. 2006)

- - i n t hatK ang has notcl ai m ed “pas tt or tur e or m i s t r eatm entdi r ect ed s peci fi cal l yather

. ” R es pondent ’ s . Supp. B r . at7- 8. 3D e p lo ra b le p riso n c o n d iti o n s d o n o t, by th e m se lv e s, c o n stitu te to rtu re . In c o n tra st, K a n g p re se n ted c o n sid e ra b le e v id e n c e to s uppor ta fi ndi ng of s peci fi c i nt entt o i nfl ic ts ever e pai n and a f in d in g th a t s h e w o u ld b e s p e c if ic a lly ta rg e te d

. 14 A p e t i t i o n e r s e e k i n g wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l u n d e rCA T m u st s h o w th a t “it is m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o t he pr opos ed countr y of r emoval

. ” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(2 ). A ll ev id e n c e re lev a n t to th e p o ss ib ili ty o f futur e t or tur e s houl d be cons i der ed w hen as s es s i ng i f a pet i t i oneri s m or e l i kel yt han nott o be t or tur ed i f r emoved. I d. § 208. 16( c) ( 3)

. T he r egul at i ons s etoutt he fol l ow i ng defi ni t i on of t or tur e: T o rtu re is d e f

in e d a s an ya c t b yw h ich se v e re p a in o r su f f e rin g , w h e th e r p h y sic a l o r m e n tal, is i nt ent i onal l yi nfl i ct ed on a per s on fors uch p u rpo ses a s o b tai n in g fro m h im o r he r or a thir d p e rso n i nfo rm at i on or a co n f e ss io n , p u n ish in g h im o r h e r f o r a n a c t h e o r s h e o r a t h i r d per s on has comm i t t ed ori s s us pect ed of ha vi ng comm i t t ed, o r in ti m idating o r co erc ing h im o r he r or a thir d per s on, or for any r eas on bas ed on di s cr i m i nat i on o f a n yk in d , w h e n su c h p a in o r su f f e rin g is i nfl i ct ed byoratt he i ns t i gat i on of or w it h t he cons en t oracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al or o t h e rp e r s o n a c t i n g i n a n o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y.15 8 C .F .R

. § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 ). In a d d iti o n , “[ i]n o rd e r to c o n stitu te tortu re, an ac t m u st be sp ec ifi ca ll yinten d ed to in f lic t sev ere phy s i cal orm ent al pai n ors uffe r i ng. ” § 208. 18( a) ( 5)

. W e have s t at ed that“C A T r equi r es a s how i ng of s peci fi c i nt ent befor e the c o u rt c a n m a k e a f

in d in g t h a t a p e titio n e r w ill b e to rt u re d .” P i erre , 5 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 9 . A p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te “ th a t h is prospecti ve tor turerw i l l hav e t he m otiv e or purpo se t o cau se hi m pai n ors uffe r i ng. ” I d.
W e conc l ude thatt he evi dence compel s t he conc l us i on t hatK an g h as m ett hi s bur den. T he B I A ’ s as s es s m entof the evi dence , as w el l as t he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entpor t r ay i ng t he ev iden ce as in v o lving m ere pr i s on condi t i ons and i gnor i ng t he i nher ent l yt or tur ous natur e of t he tr eatm entaboutw hi ch the w itn esses t es ti fied , are inex p li ca b le. M o reo v er, th e B IA ap p ea rs t o have t ot al l yign o red the mostfor cef ul r ecor d evi dence

. Z h eyu n Jin’s an d B ao yu Jin’s af fid av it s stated th at, in an ef fo rt to f o rc e th e m to d isc lo se th e lo c a tio n s o f o th e r m e m b e rs o f th e ir or gani zat i on, C hi nes e off i ci al s beatt hem, pour ed col d w at er ov er t hem , w hipped t hem , pu t plas t i c bag s ov er t heir head s to su f f o c a te th e m , h u n g th e m in th e a ir, sh in e d b rig h t li g h ts in to th e ir e ye s, d e p riv e d th e m o f sle e p , an d sh o c k e d th e m w ith e le c tr ic a l c u rr e n t.
D u ri n g h er h ea ri n g , K a n g s im ila rl yte s tif ie d th at m em b ers of heror gani zat i on had bee n s uff o cat ed w i t h pl as t i c bags and b ea ten. K an g also test ifi ed , co rrob o rated b yh er so n ’s af fid av it

-- al s o i gnor ed by t he B I A

- - t hat w hen pol i ce i nt err ogat ed hers on aboutherw her eabout s , t heybeat hi m , ki cked hi m , and depr i ved hi m of sl eep for s ever al day s . D ur i ng K ang’ s hear i ng and i n a w r i t t en af

fi davi t , K i m t es t i fi ed that he had hea r d of orobs erved16 o th e r p riso n e rs b e in g b e a ten , fo rc e d to sta n d f o r 4 8 h o u rs a t a t i m e, depr i ved of s l eep, and el ectr i cal l ys hocked as p artof in ter ro g a tio n s re g a rd in g th e ir in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e N o rth K orean refug ees. T he 2 00 7 C ou ntry R epo rtcorr ob orat ed these cl ai m s , r epor t ing t hatt or tur e i n C hi na w as “w i des pr ead” and t hati ti nvol ved m anyof the met hods des cr i bed above

. A pp. 506- 07.
I n l i ghtof t hi s evi dence , t he B I A ’ s concl us i on t hatK ang fai l ed to sh o w t he r equi r ed l i kel i hood of t or tur e fa l l s s hor tof sati sfy ing the s u b stan ti al e v iden ce stan d ard ; rathe r, itis co n tr ary to th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . A lth o u g h w e g e n e ra llyd e f e r to t he B I A ’ s concl us i on, t he B I A m aynot“s i m p l yover l ook e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd ” th a t s u p p o rt s K a n g ’s c la im

. Es pi nos aC or t ez , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 1 7 9 1 9 5 at *1 1

. In it s o p in ion , the B IA i gnor ed the maj or i t yof the evi dence t hatK ang pr es ent ed, i ncl udi n g the m os tt el l i ng evi dence of t or tur e, and i ns t ead m ent i oned onl yt he C ount r yR epor t and K i m ’ s t es t i m ony . T he B IA con cl ud ed that, even i f t orture occu rr ed i n C hinese pri sons, K ang had notdemonst r at ed thati tw as m or e l i kel yt han nott hat s he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r eturned t o C hi na. Si gni fi cant l y , t he B IA d id n o t m en ti o n the testi m o n yo f in d ividu als w h o w ere s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o K ang. K ang’ s s i tuat i on i n C hi na i s unl i ke K i m ’ s beca us e he i s an A m er i can ci t i zen. B ycontr as t , Z heyun J i n and B aoyu J i n w er e named i n t he s ame ar r es tw arr antas K ang, and K ang’ s s on w as s peci fi cal l y i nt err ogat ed and a bus ed i n or dert o el i ci ti nfor m at i on aboutK ang her s el f. B eca us e the B IA re lied o n o n lyK im ’s te stim o n ya n d th e C o u n tryR e p o rt, an d co m p let elyign o red the o ther af fid av it s, it s co n clus ion s are n o t “r e a so n a b lyg ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd ” ; th e re f o re , w e o w e its d e c is io n n o d e f

e re n c e . Sh e riff

, 5 8 7 F .3 d a t 5 8 9

.17 T h e r e c o r d c o m p e ls th e c o n c lu sio n th a t if K a n g is r emoved t o C hi na i ti s m or e l i kel yt han nott hats h e w il l be beat en, s uffoc at ed, depr i ved of s l eep, s hocked w i t h el ectr i cal curr ent , and/ orfor ced t o s t and for l ong per i ods of t i m e, and that th is w o u ld b e d o n e w ith th e p u rp o se o f c a u sin g h e r se v e re p a in a n d s u f f e r i n g . Ot h e ri n d i v i d u a l s a c c u s e d o f p r e c i s e l yt h e s a me cri m e as K ang w ere s ubj ect ed to this t reatm ent, for t he p urpose of for ci ng t hem t o di s cl os e i nfor m at i on aboutt hei ror gani zat i on. M or eover , hers on w as abus ed i n or dert o el i ci ti nfor m at i on abou tKan g h e r s e l f

. Th e r e i s n o d o u b tt h a tt h i s t r e a t m ent s at i s fi es t he l egal defi ni t i on of t or tur e: i ti nvol ves t he i nt enti o n al i nfl i ct i on of “s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng, ” “f ors uch purpos es as obt ai ni ng . . . i nfor m at i on [fr om ]

. . . orpuni s hi ng” a n in d iv id u a l, “w ith th e c o n se n t o r a c q u ies c e n c e o f a p u b lic o f f ic ia l,” 8 C

. F. R

. § 208. 18( a) ( 1) , and w i t h “t h e m o ti ve or p u rp o s e to c a u s e p a in o r s u f f e r i n g ,” P i erre , 528 F. 3d at189. T he types of abus e s uffe r ed byZ heyun J i n and B aoyu J i n ar e not m e re lye v id e n c e o f

d e p lo ra b le p riso n c o n d it io n s. T h e a c ts th e m se lv e s c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e yw e re in ten d e d to in f lic t p a in

. T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o n ten tio n s to th e c o n tra rya re u tterly w i t houtm eri t

. W e ar e gr eat l ytr oubl ed thatt he G overnm ent ur ges t hatt he evi dence i nt r oduced byK ang i s m er el yevi dence o f su b sta n d a rd p riso n c o n d iti o n s. T h e G o v e rn m e n t co m p lete ly m isch ara cterizes K im ’s t esti m o n y o n this i ssu e. K im ’s t est i m on yw as not l i m i t ed to de scr i bing pri son co nd i t i on s. R a th e r, h e tes tifie d th a t p riso n e rs w e re su b jec ted to th e a c ts d esc ri b ed a b o v e w h en theyfa il ed to d iscl o se a sati sfa ctory amount of i nfor m at i on dur i ng i nt err ogat i ons . Fur t her m or e, as des cr i bed i n det ai l above, K ang pr es ent ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence18 t hatot heri ndi vi dual s i n heror gani zat i on w er e t or tur ed, and the di s turbi ng des cr i pt i ons of thei ri nt err ogat i ons compel t he concl us i on t hatt he aut hor i t i es act ed w i t h t he purpos e of in f lictin g se rio u s p a in a n d su f f e rin g . N o o th e r p u rp o se c o u ld e x p lai n th e h o rrif

ic e x p e rie n c e s d e taile d in th e a f f id a v its p re s e n te d to th e IJ

. I ti s di s appoi nt i ng, even s hocki ng, t hatt he governm ent fai l s t o ackno w l edg e t hat t he evi den ce i s no t on l y stron g lyin K a n g ’s f a v o r, b u t, in d e e d , c o m p e ls th e c o n c lu sio n th a t sh e w ill l i k ely b e t or tur ed. A n at t or neyr epr es ent i ng t he U ni t ed St at es “ca r r i es a doubl e bur den. ” H andf or d v. U ni t ed Stat es , 249 F. 2d 2 9 5 , 2 9 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 5 8 ). T o b e su re , “h e o w e s a n o b lig a tio n to th e g o v e rn m e n t, ju st a s a n ya tto rn e yo w e s a n o b lig a tio n to h is cl i ent , t o conducthi s cas e ze al ous l y . ” Id

. Ho we v e r , a tt h e s a me t i m e he m us t be ever cogni zant t hat “he i s t he r epr es ent at i ve of a governm ent dedi cat ed t o fai r nes s and equa l j us t i ce t o al l and, in th is r e s p e c t, h e o w e s a h e a v yo b lig a tio n to [ h is a d v e rs a ry].” Id

. U nfor tunat el y , i n t hi s cas e, “ze al w as perm i t t ed t o out run fai rnes s . ” U

n ited S ta tes v . G o o dw in , 4 9 2 F .2 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 7 (5 th C i r . 1974)

. T he G overn m en t, upon vi ew i ng t he compel l i ng ev iden ce in the rec o rd, sho u ld h av e re ali ze d that the B IA ’s deci s i on t o denyK ang C A T r el i ef w as w r ong and ther efor e o u g h t t o h av e c o m e b ef o re this C o u rtin su p p o rto f K an g ’s pet i t i on, r athert han aga i ns t i t

. I ns t ead, t he G overnm ents ought to ch ara cterize the fa cts i n su ch a w ayso as t o d istrac t th e C o u rt fr om t he di r e natur e of K ang’ s pl i gh t. W h i l e ouradver s ar i al s y s t em m ayper m i ts uch advoc acyby pr i vat e par t i es - w hen the U n it ed S tat es ap p ea rs b ef o re u s, it is du ty -bo u n d to “c u t squ are corner s ” and s eek j us t i ce r ather t han vi ct or y . W e ar e di s t r es s ed t hati tfai l ed t o do s o i n t hi s cas e.19 W e co ncl ude that , beca us e the B I A i gnor ed o v e rw h e lm in g p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e p r o d u c e d b yK a n g , it s f i n d i n g s we r e n o tr e a s o n a b l yg r o u n d e d i n t h e r e c o r d a n d t h u s we ac c o r d n o d e f

e r e n c e t o t h e BI A’ s d e c i s i o n . Con s i d e r i n g t he r ecor d as a w hol e, w e fi nd t hatt he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on w as not bas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. R ather , t he evi dence i ns t ead compel s t he conc l us i on t hat i ti s m or e l i kel yt han nott hatK ang w i l l be t or tur ed i f r etur ned t o C hi na. W hi le o rdi nar i l y“the p ro p e r c o u rse , ex c e p t in ra re c irc u m sta n c e s, is [ f o r a n a p p e llate c o u r t ] t o r e ma n d t o t h e a g e n c y f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n or expl anat i on, ” F l or i da P ow er& Li ghtC o. v. Lori on , 47 0 U. S. 7 2 9 , 7 4 4 (1 9 8 5 ), “[ w ] here appl i cat i on of t he corr ect l egal p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e r e c o r d c o u l d l e a d o n l y t o t h e s a me concl usi on, t here i s no ne e d t o requi re age ncy r e c ons i de r at i on. ” Zabal a v. A s tr ue , 5 9 5 F

. 3 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 9 (2d C ir

. 2010) ( al t er at i ons om i t t ed, emphasi s added)

. T he ca s e bef or e us i s one of thos e “rare ci r cumst ance s ” w her e r emand i s not nece s s ary , s i nce, as s etfor t h above, t he r ecor d evi dence overw hel m i ngl ys uppor t s - and i ndeed, compel s - t he conc l us i on t h a tKa n g ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rwi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l u n d e rCA T sh o u ld b e g ran ted, a n d n o am o u n t of rec o n side rati o n b ythe B IA w oul d change t hat

. A ccor di ngl y , w e re ver s e t he B I A ’ s deci s i on, and gr antK ang’ s pet i t i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval pur s uant t o CA T.