FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUG 8, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15742 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 77- 977- 849 Y I Q I A N G Y A N G , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 8, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he C ourt , on i t s ow n m ot i on, gr a nt s r e he a r i ng a nd s ubs t i tut e s thi s opi ni on for the on e w e i ss ued earl i erthi s m on th. S ee Y ang v . U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney2

G ener al , ___ F . 3d ___, 20 07 W L 20 00 04 4 (11 th C i r. Jul y 12, 20 07 ). Y i Q i ang Y ang, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es i l l e ga l l yon S e pt e m be r28, 2001. W hi l e he w a s de t a i ne d a tthe a i rport , i m m i gr a t i on of f i c i a l s c onduc t e d a n e ntr a nc e i nt e rvi e w . T he y a s ke d Y a ng w hy he c a m e t o the U ni t ed S t at es . H e s ai d thathe ca m e bec ause A m er i caw as “ bett er[than] C hi na” a nd “ the gr e a t e s tc ountry i n the w or l d, ” a nd he w a nt e d “ t o e a rn al i vi ng. ” Y a ng w as then asked w hether he had any re as on t o fear r eturni ng t o C hi na. H e s ai d that h e m ig h t b e p u t in ja il f o rn o t h a v in g ap a s s p o rt, b u t th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e h a rm e d . H ow ever , Y ang con t i nu ed, he “ re al l y [ di d n ot ] w antt o g o b ac k t o C hi na. ” W hen a s k e d f o rh is m a r ita l s ta tu s , Y a n g s a id h e w a s “s in g le .” Y an g w as ch arg ed w i th rem o v al fo r, am o n g o th er th i n g s, fai l i n g t o p o ssess a va l i d e ntry doc um e nta tthe t i m e he s oughta dm i s s i on i nt o the c ountry , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . Y a ng c onc e de d tha the w a s r e m ovabl e ba s e d on thi s c harge. H e a l so appl i ed for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture. A thi s a s y l um he a r i ng, Y a ng t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd J i a ng H ui L i ng ha d a

“ tra di t i on al m arri age c er em on y” w i th fri ends and fam i l y on Jul y 15, 20 00 . T hey coul d n otbe form al l y m arri ed, ac cordi ng t o Y ang, because und erC hi nese l aw they w e r e unde rthe l e ga l a ge — Y a ng w a s 20 a nd L i ng w a s 17. T h e co u p l e d i sco v ered th atL i n g w as p reg n an ti n F eb ru ary 2 0 0 1 . B ecau se3

they w er e notl egal l y m arri ed, Y ang sai d, the C hi nese go vernm entw ou l d force L in g to h a v e a n ab o rtio n if it d is c o v e r e d th a t s h e w a s p r e g n a n t. T o a v o id det ec t i on , Y ang and L i ng hi d atY ang’ s grand m other’ s hou se . T he gove rnm e ntf

ound outa ny w a y . O n J ul y 3, 2001, f a m i l y pl a nni ng offi ci al s t oo k L i ng t o the ho spi t al t o h ave an abo rt i on . W hen Y ang d i sc ov er ed that L i ng w a s m i s s i ng, he w e ntt o the hos pi t a l t o f r e e he r . O nc e the r e , f

i ve gove rnm e nt of f i c i a l s be ga n t o be a tY a ng, but , a c c or di ng t o hi m , he gr abbe d abr oom , be a tthe of f i c i a l s of f of hi m , a nd e s c ape d. Y ang d i d n otre turn t o h i s hom e bec ause the fa m i l y pl anni ng offi ci al s w er e w a i t i n g f o rh i m th e r e ; th e n e x td a y th e y s e n tas u b p o e n ao r d e r i n g th a tY a n g c o me t o the l oc a l s e c ur i ty of

f i c e . Y a ng l a t e rhe a r d tha tL i ng ha d be e n f or c e d t o abortthe baby . H e l e f

tC hi naon S e pt e m be r25, 2001. I n a d d itio n to h is te s tim o n y , Y a n g s u b m itte d c o rr o b o r a tin g e v id e n c e in s upportof

hi s a s y l um pe t i t i on. A m ong the e xhi bi t s i ntr oduc e d a tthe a s y l um hear i ng , Y ang o ff

er ed: (1) the S t at e D epartm ent ’ s c ou ntryre po rton C hi na; (2) a no t e f rom L i anj i ang h ospi t al , dat ed Jul y 3, 20 01 , st at i ng thatL i ng had an i nd uced abort i on; ( 3) as ubpoe naf r om the l oc a l s e c ur i ty of f i c e , da t e d J ul y 4, 2001, s um m oni ng Y a ng t o i t s of f i c e the ne xtda y ; ( 4) ar e c e i pt , da t e d J ul y 2, 2000, f or tw o w eddi ng ri ng s pai d for by Y ang; and (5) a l ett erfr om Y ang’ s uncl e s t at i ng that he att ended Y ang’ s “ tra di t i on al w eddi ng ” on Jul y 15, 20 00 , Y ang and L i ng w er e4

m a rr i e d by tr a di t i ona l m e a ns be c aus e “ e a r l y m a rr i a ge i s f orbi dde n, ” a nd w he n L i ng w a s f o r c ib lyta k e n b y f

a m ilyp la n n in g o f

f ic ia ls to h a v e a n ab o rtio n , Y a n g “tr ie d to s a v e h is w if

e a n d f o u g h t w ith th e o f

f ic ia ls .” Y a ng’ s e xhi bi t s a l s o i nc l ude d a n a f f i da vi ta nd al e tt e rf

r om L i ng. T he a f f i da vi t , da t e d M a r c h 10, 2005, s t a t e d tha ts he a nd Y a ng “ he l d aw e ddi ng a c c or di ng t o the ol d tr a di t i ona l c us t om on J ul y 15, 2000 . . . a nd s t a rt e d t o l i ve t og ether w i tho utgo i ng throu gh the m arri age r egi stra t i on form al i t i es . ” T he l ett er , da t e d J a nua ry 7, 2003, ga ve the f ol l ow i ng a c c ountof

he rm a rr i a ge , pr e gna nc y a nd abort i on: De a rHu s b a n d , d o y o u s t i l l r e me mb e ro u rwe d d i n g o n J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 ? S om et i m e a ft erou r m arri age, i n aroun d F ebruary20 01 , I di d n otfe el good a nd w e ntt o s e e adoc t or . I tw a s the n w e f ound outI w oul d gi ve bi rth t o ourc hi l d . . . . B uts i nc e C hi naha s ave ry s tr i c tc he c ki ng sy st em on F am i l y P l anni ng , w e w om en have t o h ave physi ca l chec k up every three -m on th. O n Jul y 3rd, M om ca l l ed us and sai d she w as ve ry s i c k. W e w e r e ve ry w orry a nd a f r a i d s om e thi ng m i ghthappe n, s o w e ru s h e d b a c kto v is it h e r . A f te ry o u f o u n d o u t s h e w a s r e a lly s ic k , y o us e n t h e rto th e h o s p ita l im m e d ia te lya n d le f t m e h o m e a lo n e . A tar ou nd 2 p . m . i n the af t erno on there ca m e s even peop l e. T hey c l a i m e d the y w e r e f

r om the F a m i l y P l a nni ng O f f i c e a nd tr i e d t o t a ke m e a w a y f

or c e f ul l y . E ve n though I tr i e d t o s truggl e a nd be gge d f or the i rm e r c y , the y w oul d notbothe rt o c a r e . T he y t ook m e t o L i a nj i a ng C o u n ty Ho s p i t a l a n d l o c k e d m e u p i n ar o o m . A m o m e n tl a t e rtwo nur s e s c a m e i ns i de . O ne of the nur s e s w ho ha d as y r i nge i n he rha nd gave m e ashoti n m y abd om en. A ft era f ew m i nu t es , I had a very s h a rp p a in in th a t a r e a . A n d a f te rm y b ab y c a m e o u t o f m y b o d y , I saw the nu rs es pu tthe po or baby i n a pl as t i c bag. I w as so shock that I pas se d o ut . A ft erI r egai n m y c on sc i ou snes s, m y m other t ol d m e that y o u tr ie d to s a v e m e a n d f o u g h t w ith th e o f

f ic ia ls o f th e F a m ily P l anni ng O ff

i ce . T he C adre s of the F am i l y P l anni ng U ni tw er e5

l ooki ng f ory ou a nd tr i e d t o a rr e s ty ou. T h e i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e fo u n d th atY an g w as n o ten t i t l ed t o asyl u m b ecau se h e h a d n o t e s tab lis h e d th a t h e w a s s u b je c t to p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rth a t h e h a d aw e llf 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 Ja c k n o wl e d g e d th a ti n M a tt e ro f C- Y- Zthe B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s hel d “ thatan al i en w ho ’ s [ si c] spou se w as fo rced t o u n d erg o an ab o rt i o n o r st eri l i zat i o n p ro ced u re can est ab l i sh p ast pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof po l i t i ca l op i ni on as a r ef ug ee w i thi n the defi ni t i on of that w ord u nd erS ec t i on 10 1(a) (42) of the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct . ” B utthe IJ foun d thatY ang h ad “ fa i l ed fi rs tof al l t o p rove thathe and thi s per son h e des cr i bes a s h is w if

e e n te r e d in to atr a d itio n a l m a rr ia g e in [ h is ] c o u n try o f C h in a .” T h e I J a ls o f

o u n d th a t Y a n g h a d “f

a ile d to p r e s e n t a n y th in g to th e C o u rt to s how tha ttr a di t i ona l m a rr i a ge s a r e l e ga l i n C hi naa nd r e c ogni z e d by the g o v e rn m e n t o f

C h in a .” A n d , th e I J f

o u n d th a t in Y a n g ’s “o w n m in d h e is s in g le . T h a t’s w h y h e a n s w e r e d th e q u e s tio n r e g a r d in g h is m a r ita l s ta tu s a s b e in g s in g le .” T h e I J c o n c lu d e d th a t Y a n g h a d “f a ile d to e s tab lis h [ ] as p o u s a l r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n h im a n d th e p e r s o n h e d e s c r ib e d o rr e f e rr e d to a s h is w if

e th r o u g h o u t h is ap p lic a tio n .” T h e r e f

o r e , even i f the C ou rtw er e t o con cl ud e that[Y ang] w as abl e t o p rove that the pe r s on he r e f

e r s t o a s hi s w i f

e w a s f or c e d t o unde r go abort i on he cann otbenefi tfr om that . T he re as on i s thathe fa i l ed t o sho w thatthey w er e l egal l y m arri ed and the deci si on i n the M att erof C -Y -Z -, appl i es onl y w he r e as pous a l r e l a t i ons hi p ha s be e n e s t abl i s he d be tw e e n the6

r e s ponde nta nd the s pous e . T he C ourtc onc l ude s tha tthe B oa r d of I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls in th e M a tte ro f C - Y - Z - , d o e s n o t ap p lyin [Y ang] ’ s c as e. T he I J a l s o c onc l ude d a s a n a l t e rna t i ve gr ound f orde ny i ng Y a ng’ s pe t i t i on th a t th e e n c o u n te rw ith f a m ilyp la n n in g o f

f ic ia ls h e d e s c r ib e d w a s n o t s u f f ic ie n tly se ri ou s t o con st i tut e per se cut i on . A s t o any w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on , the IJfoun d Y ang’ s t es t i m on y t o b e notcr edi bl e, and there fore , a c c o r d in g to th e I J , Y a n g h a d n o t p r e s e n te d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e th a t “a n y o n e in C h in ais lo o k in g f

o rh im o n a c c o u n t o f

ap r o te c te d g r o u n d .” B e c aus e Y a ng ha d notm e e thi s bur de n a s t o a s y l um , the I J c onc l ude d tha the c oul d notm e e tthe hi ghe rbur de n f ore s t abl i s hi ng e nt i t l e m e ntt o w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. A n d a s to Y a n g ’s C A T c la im , th e I J c o n c lu d e d th a t Y a n g h a d “f a ile d to e s t abl i s h tha the w a s t ortur e d i n hi s c ountry ortha ti ti s m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha the w o u ld b e to rtu r e d if

h e w e r e to r e tu rn to h is c o u n try .” T h e B I A d is m is s e d Y a n g ’s ap p e a l o f th e I J ’s d e c is io n . T h e B I A a g r e e d w ith th e I J th a t “a n ap p lic a n t m u s t h a v e e n te r e d in to ale g a llyr e c o g n iz ab le m a rr ia g e in or de rt o be c ons i de r e d as pous e w i thi n the m e a ni ng of M a tt e rof

C - Y - Z - . , ” a nd

“ [u] nd er age c ou pl es l i vi ng i n d e f ac t o u nregi st er ed re l at i on shi ps ar e notre cogn i ze d a s m a rr ie d b y th e C h in e s e g o v e rn m e n t.” T h e B I A a ls o c o n c lu d e d th a t Y a n g w a s n o t e n title d to r e lie f b a s e d o n h is ow n i nd ependentop po si t i on t o C hi na’ s pop ul at i on control prog ra m . T he B IAYanghas not sought reviewof the B IA’s dec ision to deny him relief under the CAT. 1 He ha s theref

ore a bandoned tha

t issue here . See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 7 a g r e e d w ith th e I J th a t Y a n g w a s n o t c r e d ib le g iv e n th e in c o n s is te n c ie s b e tw e e n h is i ni t i al ai rporti nt ervi ew and h i s a sy l um appl i cat i on . T here fore , the B IA concl ud ed tha tY a ng’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng hi s c onf r ont a t i on w i th the f

a m i l y pl a nni ng of f i c i a l s w a s t o be di s r e ga r de d. Y a ng pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on on hi s a s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l c la im s . H e c o n te n d s th a t: ( 1 ) th e B I A ’s d is p a r a te 1 treatm en to f l aw fu l l y m arri ed co u p l es fro m trad i t i o n al l y m arri ed co u p l es i s a vi ol a t i on of

the E qua l P r ot e c t i on C l aus e ; ( 2) the B I A ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng is n o t su p p o rted b y th e r ec o rd ; (3 ) th e B IA ’s d ec isio n th at Y an g an d L in g ’s m a rr i a ge w a s notas pous a l r e l a t i ons hi p w a s a n unr e a s onabl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the re fu g ee statu te, 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ), an d th e C -Y -Z - d ec isio n ; an d (4 ) th e B IA ’s c onc l us i on tha tY a ng ha d notbe e n pe r s e c ut e d f orr e s i s t i ng C hi na ’ s c oe r c i ve popul a t i on c ontr ol pr ogr a m w a s nots upport e d by the r e c or d. T he S e c r e t a ry of

H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty orthe A tt orne y G e ne r a l m a y gr a nt a s y l u m t o a n a l i e n i n th i s c o u n try i f h e me e t s th e d e f

i n i t i o n o f “ r e f u g e e . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 ). A “ refu g ee” i s any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try in w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or8

unw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of per se cut i on or a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l opi ni on. I d . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) . “[ A ] p e r s o n w h o h a s b e e n f o r c e d to ab o rt ap r e g n a n c y o rto un dergo i nv ol un t ary s t er i l i za t i on , or w ho has bee n p er se cut ed for f ai l ure or r ef

usal t o unde r go s uc h apr oc e dur e orf orothe rr e s i s t a nc e t o ac oe r c i ve popul a t i on c ontr ol prog ra m , shal l be deem ed t o h ave been pers ec ut ed on ac coun tof po l i t i ca l opi ni on . . . . ” I d. T he B IA ’ s f

ac tual det erm i nat i on s are re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd w e m us ta f f i rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s upport e d by reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w hol e . A l N a

jj a rv. A s c hr of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1283–84 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s ti s de f e r e nt i a l a nd doe s nota l l ow us t o r e - w e i gh the e vi de nc e f

r om s c r a t c h. M a z a r i e gos v. O f f i c e of U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). T he B IA ’ s “ deci si on can b e r ever se d o nl y i f the evi dence

‘ com pel s’ a r ea sonabl e f ac tfi nd ert o fi nd otherw i se . ” S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at 1230. Y ang fi rs tar gu es thatB IA ’ s di spar at e tre atm entof l egal l y m arri ed coup l es f r o m tr a d itio n a llym a rr ie d c o u p le s v io la te d th e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C lau s e . W e c a n n o t r e a c h th e m e r its o f Y a n g ’s e q u a l p r o te c tio n a r g u m e n t b e c au s e h e f a ile d to9

exhausthi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es by ra i si ng i tbefore the B IA . A m ay aA rtun du aga v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 3 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 50 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( pet i t i on er f a ile d to e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s w h e r e h e d id n o t r a is e a r g u m e n t in n o tic e o f ap p e a l o rb r ie f

b e f o r e th e B I A ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth e a r g u m e n t n o w . I d . ( th e C o u rt “la c k [ s ] ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rac la im r a i s e d i n ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w unl e s s the pe t i t i one re xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve re m edi es w i th res pectthere t o”); se e a l so 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d) (“ A courtm ayre vi ew a f i nal order of re m ov al on l y i f the al i en has e xh aust ed al l adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es a va i l abl e t o the a l i e n a s of r i ght. . . . ” ) . W e w i l l the r e f or e di s m i s s thi s pa rtof Y a ng’ s pe t i t i on. Y a ng’ s s e c ond c ont e nt i on i s tha tthe B I A ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng i s not supp ort ed by the re cord. S peci fi ca l l y, Y ang argues thati ncon si st enci es betw ee n h is in itia l in te rv ie w a t th e a irp o rt a n d h is la te rs ta te m e n ts d o n o t n e c e s s a r ily s ugge s t , a s the B I A c onc l ude d, tha thi s l a t e rs t a t e m e nt s a r e notc r e di bl e . I nde e d, three of ou r s i st erci rc ui t s have hel d thatan ai rporti nt ervi ew shou l d o nl y be use d agai nstan al i en w here the i nt ervi ew m ee t s c ert ai n i nd i ci a of r el i abi l i ty. S ee B a lo g u n v . A s h c r o f

t, 3 7 4 F .3 d 4 9 2 , 5 0 4 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “a irp o rt in te rv ie w s o n ly a r e us e f ul a nd pr oba t i ve i f

the y a r e r e l i abl e ” ) ; R a m s a m e a c hi r e v. A s hc r of t , 357 F . 3d 169, 179 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( “ T he a i rporti nt e rvi e w i s a n i nhe r e nt l y l i m i t e d f orum f orthe a l i e n t o e xpr e s s the f e a rtha tw i l l pr ovi de the ba s i s f orhi s orhe ra s y l um10

c la im , a n d th e B I A m u s t b e c o g n iz a n t o f th e in te rv ie w ’s lim ita tio n s w h e n u s in g its s ubs t a nc e a ga i ns ta n a s y l um appl i c a nt . ” ) ; B a l a s ubr a m a nr i m v. I N S , 143 F . 3d 157, 16 4 (3d C i r. 19 98 ) ( “ T hatthere w er e s om e i ncon si st enci es betw ee n the ai rport s t a t e m e nta nd B a l a s ubr a m a nr i m ’ s t e s t i m ony be f or e the i m m i gr a t i on j udge i s not suff i ci ent , st andi ng al on e, t o sup po rtthe B oard' s f i nd i ng thatB al as ub ra m anri m w as no tcr edi bl e. ”) W e ha ve ha d no oc c a s i on t o a ddr e s s the r e l i abi l i ty of a i rporti nt e rvi e w s , a nd thi s c a s e c ont i nue s tha ttr e nd. T he r e w a s othe re vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s upport i ng Y ang’ s a cc ou ntof the event s, bu teven as sum i ng for pre se ntpu rposes that ev eryth in g h e s aid is tru e, h e s ti ll h as n o t m et h is b u rd en to es tab li sh th at th e B IA ’s de c i s i on t o de ny hi m a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l w a s nots upport e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , a s we d i s c u s s b e l o w. Y ang n extar gu es thatthe B IA ’ s dec i si on thaton l y l egalspou se s are ent i t l ed t o p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e f a mi l y p l a n n i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f th e r e f u g e e s t a tu t e , 8 U . S. C. § 1 10 1(a) (42), i s an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of thatst atut e. In i t s I n re C -Y -Z -, 2 1 I . & N . D e c . 9 1 5 ( BI A 1 9 9 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) d e c i s i o n , th e BI A c o n f i rme d th e I N S’ pos i t i on tha t“ the s pous e of aw om a n w ho ha s be e n f or c e d t o unde r go a n abort i on o rs te r iliz a tio n p r o c e d u r e c a n th e r e b y e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n .” I d . a t 9 1 8 . Q u o t i n g fro m a 1 9 9 6 IN S m em o ran d u m , th e B IA sai d th at“ an ap p l i can tw h o se spou se w as forc ed t o u nd er go an abort i on or i nv ol un t ary s t er i l i za t i on has s uffe re d11

pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, a nd m a y the r e by be e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um unde rthe t e rm s of the ne w r e f uge e de f i ni t i on. ” I d. a t917–18. In i t s I n re S -L -L -, 24 I. & N . D ec . 1 (B IA 20 06 ) ( en banc), deci si on the B IA

“ decl i ne[d] t o ext end [i t s] ho l di ng i n M att erof C -Y -Z -, as m od i fi ed, t o u nm arri ed appl i ca t i on s c l ai m i ng pers ec ut i on base d o n a partner’ s abo rt i on or st er i l i za t i on . ” Id. at4. “ [W ] e l i m i tou r hol di ng t o app l i cant s w ho ar e l egal l y m arri ed un der C hi ne s e l a w . ” I d. ( f

ootnot e om i tt e d) . T hi s l i m i t a t i on w a s ne c e s s a ry , the B I A s a i d, be c aus e “ the s anc t i ty of m a rr i a ge a nd the l ong t e rm c om m i tm e ntr e f l e c t e d by m arri age pl ac e the hu sband i n a di st i nct l y di ff er entpo si t i on fr om thatof an unm a rr i e d f

a the r . F r om the poi ntof vi e w of the w i f e , the l oc a l c om m uni ty , a nd the gove rnm e nt , ahus ba nd s ha r e s s i gni f i c a nt l y m or e r e s pons i bi l i ty i n de t e rm i ni ng, w i th hi s w i f

e , w he the rt o be a rac hi l d i n the f a c e of s oc i e t a l pr e s s ur e a nd go vernm enti ncent i ves . . . . ” I d. at9. T he B IA cont i nu ed: “ In the abse nce of a le g a l m a rr ia g e , e v a lu a tin g th e e x is te n c e o f th e r e q u is ite n e x u s is p r o b le m a tic , b o th as t o w hether the appl i cantw as , i n fac t , the fa ther of the chi l d and as t o w hether l ocal offi ci al s c on si dere d h i m re spon si bl e, or w er e e ven aw ar e of hi s i nv ol vem ent . ” I d. a t9–10. Y a n g a r g u e s th a t th e le g a l m a rr ia g e r e q u ir e m e n t in S - L - L - is u n r e a s o n ab le . T he B IA ’ s i nt erpret at i on of i m m i grat i on st atut es ar e due C hevron defe re nce w here ap p r o p r ia te . B a lo g u n v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .12

“ U n d e rCh e v r o n U . S. A . , I n c . v . N a tu r a l Re s o u r c e s D e f e n s e Co u n c i l , I n c . , 4 6 7 U . S. 83 7, 10 4 S . C t . 27 78 (198 4), w here C on gres s i n a st atut e has no tspok en un am bi gu ou sl y on an i ss ue, the i nt erpret at i on of the st atut e by an agency ent i t l ed t o ad m i n i st er i ti s en t i t l ed t o d eferen ce so l o n g as i ti s reaso n ab l e. ” M azari eg o s, 241 F . 3d a t1327 n. 4. “ T he de gr e e of de f e r e nc e i s e s pe c i a l l y gr e a ti n the f i e l d of i m m i gr a t i on. ” I d. T he deci si on t o al l ow hu sbands t o cl ai m re fugee s t atus because thei r w i ves w e r e f or c e d t o ha ve abort i ons w a s ba s e d s ol e l y on the B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the r e f u g e e s ta tu te in C - Y - Z - a n d S - L - L - , a n d n o t o n a n y th in g C o n g r e s s e x p lic itlys a id i n § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) . B e c au s e Yan g c o n c e d e s th a th e wa s n o tL i n g ’ s l e g a l s p o u s e , we h a v e n o o c c a s io n to d e c id e w h e th e rth e B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e r e f u g e e s ta tu te i s due C he vr on de f

e r e nc e . S e e ge ne r a l l y L i n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s D e p’ tof J us t i c e , ___ F .3 d ___ , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 0 3 2 0 6 6 (2 d C ir. Ju ly 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( en b an c) (r ejec ti n g th e B IA ’s pos i t i on tha t8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) e xt e nds aut om a t i c r e f uge e s t a tus t o s pous e s of in d iv id u a ls th a t th e p r o v is io n e x p r e s s lyp r o te c ts ) . I n s te a d , a ll w e n e e d d e c id e is w hether, as sum i ng hu sbands of w om en w ho w er e f orce d t o h ave an abo rt i on ar e e nt i t l e d t o a s y l um f

ortha tr e a s on, the B I A ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny de r i va t i ve pr ot e c t i on to u n m a rr ie d f

a th e r s o f ab o rte d c h ild r e n is u n r e a s o n ab le . W e c on cl ud e thati ti s not . A s the B oard no t ed i n the S -L -L - dec i si on , l egal m a rr i a ge r e f

l e c t s as a nc t i ty a nd l ong- t e rm c om m i tm e nttha tothe rf orm s of13

c ohabi t a t i on s i m pl y do not . A l e ga l hus ba nd, a tl e a s ti n the e y e s of the go vernm ent , shar es si gn i fi cant l y m ore r es po nsi bi l i ty i n d et erm i ni ng , w i th h i s w i fe , w h eth er t o b ear a ch i l d i n th e face o f so ci et al p ressu re an dg o v ern m en ti n cen t i v es. F urthe rm or e , a s the B I A obs e rve d, “ be ne f i t s a nd pr e s um pt i ons ba s e d on m a rr i a ge a r e f

ound i n s o m a ny othe ra r e a s of the l a w a nd i n othe rpr ovi s i ons of the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ctthat‘ i tw ou l d see m absurd t o charac t er i ze r e lia n c e o n m a r ita l s ta tu s in C - Y - Z - a s a rb itr a ry a n d c ap r ic io u s .’” S - L - L - , 2 4 I . & N . D e c . a t 9 ( q u o tin g C h e n v . A s h c r o f t, 3 8 1 F .3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 7 n .6 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . W e a g r e e . P a te rn ityo f

th e b ab y is p r e s u m e dw h e n aw o m a n g iv e s b irth in w e d lo c k . A s the B IA no t ed, det erm i ni ng pat erni ty of the abort ed baby i s c on si derabl y m ore di ff i cul t , ye tes se nt i al for a sy l um base d o n fam i l y pl anni ng re fugee s t atus, w here th e m o th e ra n d f

a th e rh a v e n o le g a l r e la tio n s h ip . I d . a t 1 0 . U s in g m a r ita l s ta tu s is

“ ar ough w a y of

i de nt i f y i ng ac l a s s of

pe r s ons w hos e opportuni t i e s f or r e pr oduc t i on a nd c hi l d- r e a r i ng w e r e s e r i ous l y i m pa i r e d orw ho s uf f e r e d s e r i ous e m ot i ona l i nj ury a s the r e s ul tof the pe r f orm a nc e of

af or c e d abort i on or s t e r i l i z a t i on on a nothe rpe r s on. ” I d. a t9 ( quot i ng C he n, 381 F . 3d a t227) . A ny othe rrul e “ w oul d c r e a t e num e r ous pr a c t i c a l di f f i c ul t i e s tha tthe B I A m i ght re as on abl y have c ho se n t o avo i d. ” I d. at10 (quo t i ng C hen, 38 1 F . 3d at22 8). W e r e c ogni z e tha ttw o c i r c ui t s ha ve he l d tha tw he n ac oupl e ha s t a ke n a l l the st eps nec es saryt o b e m arri ed, i ncl ud i ng a tra di t i on al w eddi ng , bu tar e pre cl ud ed14

f r om m a rry i ng due t o the a ge r e qui r e m e nt s of the f a m i l y pl a nni ng l a w s , the n the c oupl e s houl d be c ons i de r e d m a rr i e d f orthe purpos e s of

c l a i m i ng a s y l um unde rthe C - Y - Z - de c i s i on. M av. A s hc r of t , 361 F . 3d 553, 558–61 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ; Z ha ng v. G onz a l e s , 434 F . 3d 993, 999 ( 7th C i r . 2006) . H ow e ve r , both of thos e de c i s i ons w ere ren d ered b efo re th e B IA ’ s S -L -L - d eci si o n i n t erp ret i n g th e sp o u se r e qui r e m e nti n C - Y - Z - , a nd the r e f or e a r e of

l i tt l e pe r s ua s i ve va l ue now . H a vi ng cond uct i ng ou r ow n C hevron anal ys i s a ft erS -L -L -, w e f i nd the re qu i re m entthatan ap p lic a n t b e “le g a llym a rr ie d ” to th e m o th e ro f h is ab o rte d c h ild to b e r e a s o n ab le f orthe r e a s ons di s c us s e d above . B e c aus e Y a ng a nd L i ng’ s tr a di t i ona l m a rr i a ge w a s notr e c ogni z e d unde rthe l a w s of C hi na , Y a ng c a nnotc l a i m r e f uge e s t a tus u n d e rth e p r o v is io n in § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 4 ) th a t “ap e r s o n w h o h a s b e e n f o r c e d to ab o rt a pregnancy . . . shal l be deem ed t o h ave been pers ec ut ed on ac coun tof po l i t i ca l o p in io n .” Y a ng’ s f i na l a r gum e nti s tha te ve n i f he w a s notl e ga l l y m a rr i e d t o L i ng, he i s s t i l l ar e f

uge e unde rthe pa rtof

§ 1101( a ) ( 42) w hi c h gr a nt s pr ot e c t i on t o a ny

“ pe r s on . . . w ho ha s be e n pe r s e c ut e d f or. . . othe rr e s i s t a nc e t o ac oe r c i ve popul a t i on c ontr ol pr ogr a m . ” I n S - L - L - the B I A e xpl a i ne d: T hatthe ho l di ng i n M att erof C -Y -Z - i s l i m i t ed t o l egal l y m arri ed spou se s does notm ean thatan un m arri ed appl i cantm aynever dem on stra t e pas tpers ec ut i on i n the cont extof a partner’ s f orce d abort i on or st er i l i za t i on . . . . [T ] here m aybe ca se s i n w hi ch an u n m a rr ie d p a rtn e rin a n e x tr e m e lyc lo s e a n d c o m m itte d r e la tio n s h ip15

m aydem on stra t e per se cut i on base d o n the cl ause re fe rr i ng t o “ other r e s is ta n c e to ac o e r c iv e p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l p r o g r a m .” 24 I . & N . D e c . a t10. T he B IA hel d that“ [i ] n the cont extof coer ci ve fa m i l y pl anni ng , the t erm

‘ re si st ance ’ covers a w i de rang e of c i rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng expres si on s of gener al o p p o s itio n , a tte m p ts to in te r f e r e w ith e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

g o v e rn m e n t p o lic y in pa rt i c ul a rc a s e s , a nd othe rove rtf orm s of r e s i s t a nc e t o the r e qui r e m e nt s of the fa m i l y pl anni ng l aw . ” I d. In a f ol l ow up t o S -L -L -, the N i nth C i rc ui thel d thatan ap p lic a n t e s tab lis h e s “r e s is ta n c e ” w h e r e h e “p h y s ic a llyo rv o c a llyr e s is te d b irth c ontr ol of

f i c i a l s w hi l e the of

f i c i a l s pe r f

orm e d dut i e s r e l a t e d t o the bi rth c ontr ol p ro g ra m .” L in v . G o n za les, 4 7 2 F .3 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). H o w ev er , “ [i]n a d d itio n to m e e tin g th e n e x u s r e q u ir e m e n t b a s e d o n ‘r e s is ta n c e ’ to th e f a m ily p lan n in g law , an ap p li ca n t claim in g p er se cu ti o n b as ed o n an u n m arried p ar tn er ’s abort i on m us tde m ons tr a t e tha the ha s s uf f e r e d ha rm a m ount i ng t o pe r s e c ut i on on ac coun tof thatre si st ance . ” S -L -L -, 24 I. & N . D ec . at10 ; se e a l so L i n, 47 2 F . 3d at 1135 ( “ E ve n though L i n r e s i s t e d ac oe r c i ve popul a t i on c ontr ol pr ogr a m , a nd thus s a tis f ie d th e ‘o n a c c o u n t o f

p o litic a l o p in io n ’ c o m p o n e n t o f § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( B ) , th is fi n d i n g d o es n o tau t o m at i cal l y est ab l i sh p ersecu t i o n . In st ead . . . L i n m u stal so dem on stra t e pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . ”) . F in a lly , in d e te rm in in g w h e th e ra n u n m a rr ie d p a rtn e ris in a n e x tr e m e ly16

c l os e a nd c om m i tt e d r e l a t i ons hi p w i th the pr e gna ntm othe r , the B I A s a i d one s houl d l ook t o: w hether the coup l e has chi l dren t og ether, has c oh abi t ed for a si g n i fi can tl en g th o f t i m e, h o l d s th em sel v es o u tt o o th ers as a c o m m itte d c o u p le , h a s ta k e n s te p s to h a v e th e irr e la tio n s h ip r e c ogni z e d i n s om e f

a s hi on ( pe rhaps ha vi ng t a ke n s uc h s t e ps r e pe a t e dl y , a s w he r e pe rm i s s i on t o m a rry ha s be e n de ni e d by au th o r itie s b a s e d o n f

a ilu r e to m e e t th e m in im u m a g e r e q u ir e m e n ts ) , is fi nanci al l y i nt er depend ent , and w hether pers uasi ve obj ec t i ve evi dence of tha tr e l a t i ons hi p’ s c ont i nue d e xi s t e nc e dur i ng the t i m e tha tthe appl i c a ntha s be e n i n the U . S . i s pr e s e nt e d. S -L -L -, 24 I. & N . D ec . at10 –1 1 (qu ot at i on om i tt ed). I n thi s c a s e , the B I A f

ound tha tY a ng “ ha [ d] notm e thi s bur de n of pr ovi ng hi s pe r s e c ut i on c l a i m on a c c ountof hi s ow n r e s i s t a nc e t o ac oe r c i ve popul a t i on control prog ra m or re si st ance t o the al l eged force d abo rt i on of hi s partner. ” E ven as sum i ng thatthe do cum ent ary e vi dence es t abl i shed thatL i ng and Y ang h ad an e xtr e m e l y c l os e a nd c om m i tt e d r e l a t i ons hi p a nd tha tY a ng r e s i s t e d f a m i l y pl a nni ng offi ci al s a tthe ho spi t al w here L i ng w as t aken t o h ave an abo rt i on , the evi dence d o e s n o t c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t Y a n g w a s p e r s e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f h is re si st ance t o L i ng ’ s abo rt i on . T he do cum ent ary e vi dence es t abl i shed: (1) that Y ang h ad a physi ca l al t er ca t i on w i th fam i l y pl anni ng offi ci al s; (2) thatY ang w as s ubpoe na e d by the l oc a l s e c ur i ty of f i c e ; ( 3) the “ c a dr e s of

the F a m i l y P l a nni ng U n it w e r e lo o k in g f

o r[ Y a n g ] a n d tr ie d to a rr e s t h im ” ; a n d ( 4 ) “th e F a m ily P la n n in g O f

f ic ia ls a n d th e V illa g e C a d r e s a r e s till lo o k in g f o r[ Y a n g ] a n d tr ie d to17

a rr e s t [ h im ].” T hi s i s i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh pers ec ut i on . In Z heng v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt orne y G e ne r a l , 451 F . 3d 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , w e he l d tha te vi de nc e the a s y l um pe t i t i one rha d be e n de t a i ne d by the C hi ne s e gove rnm e ntf orf i ve da y s but h a d s u f f e r e d n o in

ju r ie s d id n o t c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t h e h a d b e e n p e r s e c u te d . Id. at12 90 –9 1. H er e, Y ang w as no tdet ai ned for any l ength o f t i m e and , as far a s w e c a n te ll f

r o m th e r e c o r d , s u f

f e r e d n o p h y s ic a l in

ju r ie s f r o m h is e n c o u n te rw ith th e f a m ilyp la n n in g o f

f ic ia ls . W h ile Y a n g w a s s u b p o e n a e d a n d th r e a te n e d w ith arre stfor opp osi ng C hi na’ s f am i l y pl anni ng l aw s, the S t at e D epartm ent ’ s c ou ntry re po rt , i n the se ct i on t i t l ed “ P enal t i es and R ew ar ds, ” s t at ed thati n the F uj i an prov i nce w here Y ang i s f rom , tho se w ho have m ore c hi l dren than p erm i tt ed ar e as se ss ed a f

i ne, bu tthe C on sul at e G ener al “ di d n otfi nd any c as es of ph ys i ca l forc e a c tua l l y e m pl oy e d i n c onne c t i on w i th abort i on ors t e r i l i z a t i on. I n i nt e rvi e w s of F uj i a n vi s aappl i c a nt s w ho ha d s e ve r a l c hi l dr e n, U . S . C ons ul a rof f i c e r s f ound m any vi ol at ors of the on e- chi l d p ol i cypai d fi nes; ho w ever , the offi ce rs had p e r s o n a llys e e n n o f

o r c e d ab o rtio n o rp r o p e rtyc o n f is c a tio n .” F rom thi s r ec ord, havi ng suff er ed no prol on ged d et ent i on or ph ys i ca l v io le n c e , a n d b e in g a t little r is ko f p h y s ic a l v io le n c e f

o rh a v in g o p p o s e d th e f a m ily pl a nni ng l a w s i f

r e turne d t o C hi na , w e a r e notc om pe l l e d t o c onc l ude tha tY a ng w a s s u b je c t to p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rh a s aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n .18

A c c or di ngl y , w e w i l l de ny hi s pe t i t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on on hi s a s y l um c la im . M oreover, because there i s no evi dence com pel l i ng a f i nd i ng thatY ang w as pe r s e c ut e d, he c a nnotm e e tthe hi ghe rbur de n f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l by p o in tin g to e v id e n c e c o m p e llin g af in d in g th a t it is m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w ill be pe r s e c ut e d upon hi s r e turn t o C hi na . S e e A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1292–93 ( “ W he r e a n appl i c a nti s unabl e t o m e e tthe ‘ w e l l - f ounde d f e a r ’ s t a nda r d f

or a s y l um , he i s ge ne r a l l y pr e c l ude d f r om qua l i f

y i ng f ore i the ra s y l um orw i thhol di ng of [ r e m ova l ] . ” ) . W e w i l l the r e f or e de ny hi s pe t i t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on o n h i s w i th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l c l a i m. PE TI TI ON DI SM I SS ED I N PART AND DENI ED I N PART.