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- 2743

_____________ M E I L A N L I, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

_______________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the 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 1: A 099- 669- 260) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n . M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

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

J ul y13, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , J O R D A N a n d G R E E N A W A Y , J R ., C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed : J ul y19, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________2

J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . M e i L a n L i p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

th e o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) deny i ng herappl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . W e w i l l deny th e p e titio n . I . Backg r ound B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , w e w ill d isc u ss o n lyth o se f a c ts re lev a n t to the pet i t i on forr evi ew . L i , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, w as caughtent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l yi n A pr i l of 2006. She conce ded r emovabi l i tybuts oughtt o avoi d r emoval byapp l y i ng for asy l um , w i thh 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 ”) . A hear i ng on L i ’ s appl i cat i on forr el i ef w as hel d befor e an Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e (“ IJ ” ) o n J a n u a ry 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 . L i w a s th e o n lyw itn e ss a t th e h e a rin g . S h e tes tifie d th a t sh e w a s b o rn in th e Jilin pr ovi nce of

C hi na i n 1978, and thats he w as m arr i ed w i th one chi l d. L i fur thert es t i fi ed th a t sh e b e c a m e a C h ristia n in M a yo f 2 0 0 4 a n d b e g a n w o rsh ip in g w ith o th e r in d iv id u a ls as partof a c hur ch thatw as notgovernm ents pons or ed. O n D ece m ber19, 2004, s he and otherC hr i s t i ans had gather ed t o w or s hi p atherhous e w hen pol i ce of fi cer s came i nt o t he hom e, confi s cat ed the r el i gi ous l i t er atur e, and arr es t ed Li . L i t es t i fi ed thats he w as then ta k e n to a d e te n tio n c e n te r, w h e re th e p o lic e in te rr o g a te d h e r a b o u t h e r r e lig io u s b e lie f s . S h e f u rth e r a ss e rte d th a t, w h e n sh e re f u se d to sig n a d o c u m e n t ag re e in g n e v e r to h o ldT h e re is s o m e a m b ig u ity in th e re c o rd a b o u t th e e x te n t o f th e in ju ri e s to h e r n o s e . 1 L i t es t i fi ed thati tw as br oken, butherw r i t t en s t at ementm ent i oned onl ythati t“w as b le e d in g ” a f

te r h e r h e a d w a s b a n g e d in to th e ta b le . (A p p . a t 2 7 8 .) A l though L i w r ot e i n hers t at ementthats he s uffe r ed fr os tbi t e as a r es ul tof the 2 tw o h o u rs s p e n t in th e c o ld , s h e d id n o t te s tif y to th a t f

a c t. 3 r el i gi ous m eet i ngs agai n, the pol i ce pul l ed herhai rand s m as hed herfac e i nt o a des k, br eaki ng hernos e. She w as then det ai ned tw o w eeks , dur i ng w hi ch s he had t o s l eep on a 1 cold con cret e fl oo r. A ton e po i nt, she w as t aken ou t si de in col d w eat her for tw o h ou rs . 2 A ft ertw o w eeks , author i t i es as ked Li agai n t o s i gn a documents i gni fy i ng heragr eement nott o hol d r el i gi ous m eet i ngs . N o l ongerabl e t o endur e the col d, s he s i gned the documentand w as r el eas ed. A ft erherr el eas e, s he w as r equi r ed t o r egi s t eratthe pol i ce s ta tio n . S h e d id n o t s e e k m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t f o r t h e in ju ry to h e r n o s e . A ft erherr el eas e, L i r emai ned i n C hi na unt i l M ar ch of 2006. She s t at ed thats he a ttem p ted to lea v e in D e c e m b e r o f 2 0 0 5 b u t d id n o t su c c e e d b e c a u se sh e c a m e d o w n w ith a cold. L i t est i fi ed thatshe did no thav e anyotheri nter act i on s w i th the C hinese a u th o ri tie s b e tw e e n h e r r e le a s e in J a n u a ry o f 2 0 0 5 a n d h e r d e p a rt u re in M a rc h o f 2 0 0 6 . Fur ther , s he s ai d t hats he w as abl e t o “veryqui et l y ” cont i nue herr el i gi ous act i vi t i es d u rin g th a t ti m e . (A p p . at 1 2 0 .) L i tes tifie d th a t sh e b e liev e d sh e w o u ld b e im p riso n e d if sh e w ere return ed to C h ina a n d that h er m o ther sa id g o v ern m en t auth o ri ti es w ere s e a rc h in g f

o r h e r a f te r s h e le f

t. I n s uppor tof herappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r CAT, Li i n c l u d e d a 2 0 0 6 Co u n tr yRe p o r to n Ch i n a , th e 2 0 0 7 P r o f i l e o f As y l u m Cl a i msT he I J al s o concl uded thatL i w as notel i gi bl e forvol unt aryr emoval beca us e s he 3 h a d n o t b e e n p r e s e n t i n th e U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r a t l e a s t o n e y e a r. 4 a n d C o u n tryC o n d iti o n s in C h in a , a le tter f ro m th e re v e re n d o f

th e c h u rc h sh e a tten d e d in th e U n ited S tate s, a n d id e n tific a tio n d o c u m e n ts. S h e sta ted th a t sh e d id n o t su b m it a l ett erfr om herm otheri n C hi na corr obor at i ng hert es t i m onybeca us e herm otherw as afr ai d thatC hi nes e author i t i es w oul d open and r ead a nycorr es pondence . L i al s o di d not su b m it a le tter f

ro m h e r h u sb a n d , w h o liv e d in S o u th K o re a a t all tim e s re lev a n t to th is p e titio n . L i e x p la in e d th a t s h e d id n o t th in k o f o b ta in in g a le tte r f

ro m h e r h u s b a n d . A ft erthe hea r i ng, the I J i s s ued an or al deci s i on deny i ng L i ’ s appl i cat i on for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rC A T . Fi r s t , the I J found thatL i w as 3 nota cr edi bl e w i tnes s beca us e of i ncons i s t enci es betw een he rt es t i m onyand herw r i t t en st at em ent abou tw hen she l eftC hina, the n ature of the i njur i es t o h er nose, and C hinese author i t i es ’ i nt er es ti n her . T he I J al s o not ed thatL i fai l ed t o pr oduce a nys t at ementor o th e r e v id e n c e f

ro m h e r h u sb a n d c o rro b o ra tin g h e r te stim o n ya b o u t h e r d e ten tio n in C hi na. Second, the I J concl uded thatL i w oul d nothave metherbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng pastpersecut i on , even i f she w ere deem ed credibl e, becau se her m i streatm ent di d n ot r i se t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found thatL i , even i f cr edi bl e, had nots how n a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i n C hi na, not i ng thatL i had r emai ned i n the countryforovera y earaft erthe det ent i on w i thouti nci dentand w as abl e t o cont i nue her r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s . T h u s , h e ra p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m w a s d e n i e d . As L i h a d n o ts h o wnL i di d notappea l the I J ’ s deni al of herappl i cat i on forr el i ef unde rC A T , and the 4 B I A di d notaddr es s thati s s ue i n i t s deci s i on. B eca us e Li fai l ed t o exhaus ther admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r egar d t o herappl i cat i on forr el i ef unde rC A T , w e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w h e r a rg u m e n t th a t th e a p p lic a tio n w a s e rr o n e o u s ly d e n ie d . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ); 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 4 -9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 5 p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n o ra wel l - f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n , th e I J d e t e r mi n e d th a tLi al s o di d notes t abl i s h t hati tw as m or e l i kel ythan nots he w oul d be per s ecut ed and ther efor e w as i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . Fur therm or e, the I J found thats he h ad n o t sho w n that itw as m o re li k elythan n o t th at sh e w o u ld b e torture d if sh e w ere re m o v e d to C h in a . A c c o rd in g ly, th e IJ o rd e re d L i r e m o v e d to C h in a . L i fi l ed a t i m el yappea l w i th the B I A , ar gui ng thatthe I J err ed byfi ndi ng s he w as n o t cr e d ib le a n d h a d n o t es tab lish e d e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. 4 T he B I A i s s ued i t s ow n opi ni on, aff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on w i th r egar d t o the appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . I n i t s deci s i on, the B I A as s um ed ar guendo t hat L i t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y , butneverthel es s det erm i ned thatL i fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thats he had s uffe r ed fr om pas tper s ecut i on i n C hi na bec aus e the eve nt s s he des cr i bed di d not cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. T he B I A al s o found thatL i fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f ear of futur e per s ecut i on beca us e hert es t i m onyr evea l ed thats he had s t ay ed i n C hi na forover a y e a ra f t e rth e d e t e n t i o n a n d c o n t i n u e d t o p r a c t i c e h e rr e l i g i o n a n d a l s o h a d n o ts h o wn thatC hi na had a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i ng C hr i s t i ans att endi ng unr egi s t er ed, h o u se c h u rch es. T h ere fo re sh e f ail ed to es tablish tha t she is el igible f o r asy lum . T h e B IA a ls o n o te d th a t L i h a d f a ile d to p ro d u c e c o rr o b o ra tin g e v id e n c e f ro m h e r h u s b a n d .W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r th i s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w p u r s u a n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1252(a) . 5 6 B ecause she h ad n ot m ether burden of p rovi ng el i gibi l i tyfor asy l um , the B IA al so d eterm ined that sh e h ad n o t m et th e h igh er stan d ard fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. L i’ s t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. I I . D i s cus s i on 5 In h er p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , L i r aises thre e a rgu m en ts. S h e f ir st co n tend s tha t th e IJ a n d th e B IA e rre d b yc o n c lu d in g th a t sh e w a s n o t cr e d ib le b e c a u se o f in c o n sis ten c ies in h e rt e s t i mo n ya n d b yr e q u i r i n g h e rt o p r o v i d e c o rr o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e . S h e a l s o c l a i ms thatthe I J and the B I A fai l ed t o cons i derthe C hi na C ountryR eporti ndi cat i ng that C hi nes e off

i ci al s fr equent l ym oni t orand open mai l . Fi nal l y , s he ar gues thatI J and the B I A err ed bydet erm i ni ng thats he di d notes t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . L i ’ s ar gum entaboutcr edi bi l i tyand herotheras s ert i ons of err oron the partof the I J a r e n o tg e r ma n e b e c a u s e we r e v i e w o n l yth e d e c i s i o n o f th e BI A wh e n i ti s s u e s i t s o wn o p in io n , in s te a d o f

u p h o ld in g th e d e c is io n o f th e IJ . R r anciv. A t t ’

y G en. , 540 F. 3d 165, 1 7 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). H e re , the B IA d id n o t ad o p t o r re lyo n th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng i n i t s deci s i on. R ather , the B I A concl uded thatL i had notm etherbur den of es t abl i s hi ng s he w as el i gi bl e foras y l um orw i thhol di ng of r emoval , even i f s he had t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y . A ccor di ngl y , the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s notbefor e us , and,7

lik e th e B IA , w e w ill a s s u m e L i w a s a c re d ib le w itn e s s . See, e. g. , Jar bough v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 9 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). L i al s o ar gues thatthe B I A err ed byr equi r i ng hert o pr oduce c orr obor at i ve evi dence i n t he form of a l ett erfr om herm otheri n C hi na orherhus band i n Sout h K or ea. W e n o te firstthat this argu m en t r eli es o n a m isr ea d ing o f th e B IA ’s de cisi o n . T h e B IA d id n o t re q u ire L i to p ro d u c e a lette r f ro m h e r m o th e r in C h in a , an d th u s L i’s a rg u m e n ts r el at i ng t o a l ett erfr om herm otherort o l ett er s fr om C hi na more gener al l yar e w i thout m er i t . I ns t ead, the B I A det erm i ned thatL i fai l ed t o m eetherbur den of pr oof bec aus e s he d id n o t pro v ide c o rrob o rati n g ev iden ce in the fo rm o f a n af fid av itfro m h er h u sb an d . It w as notunr eas onabl e forthe B I A t o r equi r e Li t o pr oduce c orr obor at i ve evi dence fr om h e r h u s b a n d to s u p p o rt h e r a p p lic a tio n . S e e A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 554 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . L i t es t i fi ed thatherhus band w as aw ar e thats he w as det ai ned, and s he gave no r eas on forhi s fai l ur e t o w r i t e a l ett erors ubm i tan af fi davi t , otherthan thats he di d not a sk h im to p ro v id e a lette r. U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, it w a s n o t er ro r f o r th e B IA to n o te th e la c k o f

c o rr o b o ra tio n . Fi nal l y , the B I A di d noterrbydet erm i ni ng thats he di d notm eetherbur den of p rov ing that sh e su ff

ere d p erse cu ti o n o r th at sh e h ad a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on. W e r evi ew underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on as t o w hetheran al i en has s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on orpr oven a w el l - founded f earof f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See G om ez - Zul uaga v. A t t ’ y G en. , 5 2 7 F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).8

U nderthi s defe r ent i al s t andar d, w e w i l l uphol d the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on unl es s “the evi dence compel s a contr aryconcl us i on. ” Jar bough , 483 F. 3d at191 ( quot i ng A hm ed v. A sh c ro ft , 3 4 1 F .3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) . T h e A tt o rne yG en era l m ayg ran t asy lum to “a n yp erso n w h o is ou tsi d e a n yco u n try of s uch per s on’ s nat i onal i ty. . . and i s unw i l l i ng t o avai l . . . her s el f of the pr ot ect i on of, thatcountrybeca us e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , 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 o s how thata fe arof futur e per s ecut i on i s w el l - founded, “an a p p lica n t m u st [ f

irst] s h o w th a t h is o r h e r su b jec tiv e f e a r is g e n u in e a n d se c o n d th a t a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he al i en’ s ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o t he countryi n ques t i on. ” W ong v. A t t ’

y G en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hatper s ecut i on “i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes not i ncl ude eve r ys or tof tr eatm entours oci etyr egar ds as offe ns i ve. ” Jar bough , 483 F. 3d at 191 ( quot i ng Fa t i n v . I

NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1243 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ) . “A bus i ve tr eatm entand har as s m ent , w hi l e al w ay s depl or abl e, m aynotr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. ” I d. W ith r egar d t o hercl ai m of pas tper s ecut i on, L i t es t i fi ed thats he w as arr es t ed i n D ece m berof 2004 and thathernos e w as br oken w hen the pol i ce ba nged herhead i nt o a t abl e. She w as then det ai ned fortw o w eeks i n a col d cel l w i th no bed and f or ced t o s t and out s i de i n t he col d fortw o hour s . Y et , the onl yi nj urys he t es t i fi ed t o r ece i vi ng w as a br oken nos e, andW e do notcons i derthe l ett er s L i s ubm i t t ed t o thi s C our tfr om herfr i end i n C hi na 6 b e c a u s e th e yw e re n o t m a d e p a rt o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd . See 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( A ). 9 e v e n th a t is in q u e s tio n . ( See n .1 , supra . ) W hi l e w e of c our s e do notcondone the type of m istre a tm e n t th a t L i d e sc rib e d , su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t it w a s n o t s o e x tr e m e a s to a m o u n t to p e rs e c u tio n . See Ki bi nda v. A t t ’ y G en. , 477 F. 3d 113, 1 1 9 -20 (ho lding that an ali en d id n o t m ee t his bu rde n o f sh o w ing p ast p erse cu ti o n w h ere he w as det ai ned forfi ve day s and i nj ur ed w hen he w as hi ti n the fa ce w i th an hea vy o b je c t a n d h is in

ju ry re q u ir e d s titc h e s ). Subst ant i al evi dence al s o s uppor t s the B I A ’ s deci s i on thatL i di d notes t abl i s h that h e r f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n w a s o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le. L i tes tifie d th a t sh e liv e d in 6 C hi na fr om the t i m e s he w as r el eas ed i n ear l yJ anuaryof 2005 unt i l s he depa r t ed the countryi n M ar ch of 2006. D ur i ng thatt i m e, L i cont i nued t o pr act i ce he rr el i gi on and had no cont act s ori nci dent s w i th t he author i t i es . G i ven thatt es t i m ony , the B I A di d noterrby concl udi ng thati tw as notobj ect i vel yr eas onabl e t o bel i eve a uthor i t i es w oul d be in ter e ste d in p e rse c u tin g h e r u p o n h e r re tu rn to C h in a , h a v in g sh o w n n o su c h in ter e st in the im m ediat e aft erm at h o f her arr est . F urtherm ore, L i fai l ed to est abli sh t hat C hinese author i t i es engage d i n a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i ng C hr i s t i ans w ho w or s hi ped at u n re g is te re d h o u s e c h u rc h e s . I I I . C oncl usi on10

B ec au se su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt ed the B IA ’s de cisi o n to d en yL i’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , i tfol l ow s thati t s deni al of herappl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval w as al s o s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .