2004 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
4-23-2004 

# C he n v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2156

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C he n v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 782. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/782NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2156 QI DE NG CHEN, Petitioner

v. JOHN ASHC ROFT , Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
On Petiti on for Review of a Decisi on of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (Board fil e no. A76-280-480 )
Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) April 22, 2004 BE FO RE : SC IRI CA , Ch ief J udg e, an d R OS EN N a nd G RE EN BE RG , Circu it Judges (Fil ed: April23, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judge
. This matt er comes on befor e this court on Qi Deng Chen’s pet iti on for revi ew of a final order of t

he Board of Immigration Appeals dated April 7, 2003, affi rming, wit hout opi ni on, a de ci si on o f an immi gr at io n j udg e de ny in g hi s a ppl ic at io ns f oras y lu m,2

withholdi ng of removal, and deferral of removalunder the United Nations Convention Against Tort

ure. The i mmigrati on judge deni ed Chen reli ef in an or al deci sion fol lowed by a wri tten order. We have jur isdi ction unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1252( a)(1) . As Chen ack now ledg es, see petit ioner’ s br. at 12-14, our standard of revi ew is deferent ial bot h as to th e law and the f acts , tho ugh it is so me wh at m ore exp ans ive o n leg al iss ues . See Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft , 330 F .3d 58 7, 591 (3d C ir. 2003 ); Abdille v. Ashcroft , 242 F.3d 47 7, 483 (3d Cir. 2001 ). In consi dering t

his matter we are aware t hat si nce Congress amended t he defini tion of “refugee” i n 1996 to include persons who are subject to, or opponents of, coerci ve populati on controlprograms, federalcourts have undert aken the di fficul t tas k of determi ning which types of res ist ance to suc h programs meri t protecti on through r efugee statu s. See , e.g. , Li v. Ashcroft , 356 F.3d 1153 ( 9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) . Here we have reviewe d this matter and have co ncluded that the record su pports the im migration jud ge’s finding t hat Chen has fai led to e stabl ish per secuti on aris ing from res ist ence to a pop ulation contro l policy. Ra ther, an y punish men t of him wo uld b e by reaso n of his alter catio n w ith a p ubl ic of ficia l. W e w ill no t stretc h IN A § 101 (a)(4 2)(A ), 8 U .S.C . § 1101(a)( 42)(A), to include such conduct to be a “poli tica l opini on” enti tled to protect ion. The petition for r eview will be denied.