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 1-11-2010 

# S h an C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4639

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S h an C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2085. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2085I M G - 070 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4639

___________ S HAN GU I CH E N, P eti ti o n er, v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on ForR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 099- 074- 197 Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

J anuary5, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary11, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerShan G ui C hen, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n Sept emberof 2004 al ong the Texas bor der . A pp. 294. O n J une 13, 2005, he fi l ed an a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m u n d e r I m m ig ra tio n & N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ) § 2 0 8 (a ), 8 U .S .C . §2

1158( a) , forw i thhol di ng of r emoval underI N A § 241( b) ( 3) , 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) , and forpr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, 8 C . F. R . §§ 1208. 16( c) , 1208. 18, cl ai m i ng a fe arof per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s oppos i t i on t o C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es . I n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, Shan C hen s t at ed thathi s w i fe, X i Y ue Li n, gave bi r th t o thei rs econd da ught er , C hu B i ng C hen, on J une 27, 2000, fol l ow i ng a C aes ar ean s ect i on atL i ang Q i H os pi t al i n Fu Z hou C i ty( Fuj i an Pr ovi nce) . A pp. 294. W i thouther know l edge, the doct ors t er i l i zed he ratthe t i m e of the del i very . O n A ugus t15, 2005, r emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed aga i ns tShan C hen w hen the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyfi l ed a N ot i ce t o A ppearw i th the I m m i gr at i on C our t , char gi ng thathe w as s ubj ectt o r emoval pur s uantt o I N A § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , 8 U . S. C . §1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , as an al i en pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed. Shan C hen a d m i t t e d th e a l l e g a t i o n s i n th e N T A a n d c o n c e d e d r e m o v a b i l i ty. A hear i ng on the mer i t s w as hel d on D ece m ber12, 2006. A tthe hea r i ng, Shan C hen t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s w i fe, w ho has r emai ned i n C hi na, w er e mar r i ed i n C hi na on A p ri l 2 2 , 1 9 9 3 . A p p . 7 0 . T h e yh a d tw o c h ild re n to g e th e r, b o th d a u g h te rs . Id . a t 7 1 . S h a n C h e n tes tifie d th a t, fo llo w in g th e b irth o f h is s e c o n d c h ild o n Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 , h is w if e w a s s te ri liz e d a g a in s t h e r w ill f o llo w in g a C a e s a re a n s e c tio n p ro c e d u re . Id . a t 7 2 -7 5 . N ei therhe norhi s w i fe kne w thatthe s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e w as goi ng t o be per form ed a n d th e yd id n o t co n se n t to it. S h a n C h e n re m a in e d in C h in a f o r f o u r m o re y e a rs u n til Ju ly8 , 2 0 0 4 . Id. at 77 . H e d id n o t l ea v e C h ina im m ed iat elyb ec au se h is ch il d ren w ereT h e IJ d id n o t s e e m to d o u b t th a t S h a n C h e n ’s w if e h a d b e e n s te ri liz e d . A p p . 4 4 . 1 T her e i s evi dence s uppor t i ng thatas s ert i on i n the r ecor d. A pp. 249, 252. 3 veryy oung. I d. at80. I n s uppor tof hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, Shan C hen s ubm i t t ed a l ett er fr om hi s w i fe, i n w hi ch s he s t at ed thats he w as for ci bl ys t er i l i zed on J une 27, 2000 f o l l o wi n g th e b i r th o f

h e rs e c o n d d a u g h t e rb yCa e s a r e a n s e c t i o n a tL a n g Qi T o wn H os pi t al . I d. at227. T he 2005 St at e D epart m entC ountryR eporton C hi na al s o w as m ade a partof the A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ecor d. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge i s s ued a de ci s i on atthe end of the mer i t s hear i ng, concl udi ng thatShan C hen di d nott es t i fycr edi bl yand di d notm eethi s bur den of pr oof underthe as y l um s t atut e. T he I J al s o deni ed w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and found thatShan C h e n f a iled to sh o w th a t itw a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d u p o n h is return t o C hina. T he IJ dou bted Sh an C hen ’s cl ai m that hi s w i fe w as fo rc ib ly s t er i l i zed, 1 beca us e thi s t es t i m onyw as bel i ed bythe countrycondi t i ons evi dence of r ecor d, and, a lth o u g h S h a n C h e n su b m itt e d a n a f f id a v it fro m h is w if

e , the sta tem e n ts c o n tain e d in it w er e nea r l yi dent i cal t o t hos e i n hi s per s onal s t at ement , w hi ch r ender ed i tl es s trus tw or thy th a n it m ig h t h a v e b e e n o th e rw ise . A p p . 3 7 . T h e IJ o rd e re d S h a n C h e n ’s r e m o v a l to C hi na. S h an C h en ap p ea led to the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls, ch all en g ing the IJ’s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i tyd e t e r mi n a t i o n a n d a s s e s s me n to f c o u n tryc o n d i t i o n s i n Ch i n a . On O ct ober31, 2008, the B oar d di s m i s s ed the appe al , concl udi ng that , even a s s um i ng that Shan C hen t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y , he di d notes t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um . U nderM att erof4

J - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 520 ( A . G . 2008) , w hi ch overrul ed M att erof S- L - L - , 24 I . & N . D ec. 1 ( B I A 2006) , and M att erof C - Y - Z - , 21 I . & N . D ec. 915 ( B I A 1997) , a hus band l i ke Shan C hen, w ho has notcl ai m ed ors how n thathe w as for ci bl ys t er i l i zed, exper i ence d h a rm b e c a u se h e re f

u se d to u n d e rg o ste riliza tio n , o r d e m o n stra ted o th e r re sis tan c e to C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es , i s no l ongeraut om at i cal l yent i t l ed t o r efuge e s t atus bas ed s ol el yon the for ced s t er i l i zat i on of hi s w i fe. A ccor di ngl y , Shan C hen di d not e sta b lish p a st p e rse c u tio n in C h in a th a t w o u ld g iv e rise to a p re su m p tio n o f a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on on the s ame bas i s . Fur therm or e, al though he t es t i fi ed thathe w oul d cont i nue t o be harm ed byC hi na’ s pol i ci es , the cont ent i on w as vague, and the fa ct re m a in e d th a t h e sta y e d in C h in a f o r f o u r y e a rs a f

ter h is w if

e a lleg e d lyw a s f

o rc ib ly s t er i l i zed, and had no f

ur therencount er s w i th C hi nes e author i t i es . T he I J ’ s w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T det erm i nat i ons al s o w er e uphel d. Shan C hen has t i m el ypet i t i oned forr evi ew of the B oar d’ s deci s i on. W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) . W her e the B oar d adopt s the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es forthe I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i tyt o r evi ew both deci s i ons . C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A n appl i cantbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um . Shar darv. A t t ’ yG en. , 503 F. 3d 308, 312 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I n the abs ence of evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on, the appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e a s ubj ect i ve fe ar o f p e rse c u tio n th ro u g h c re d ib le te stim o n yth a t h is f e a r is g e n u in e , Z u b e d a v . A sh c ro f t,5

3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), an d th e a p p lica n t m u st s h o w th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n in h is c ir c u m s ta n c e s w o u ld f e a r p e rs e c u tio n if

re tu rn e d to th e c o u n tr yin q u e s tio n , s e e id . T he B oar d’ s fi ndi ngs i n t hi s r egar d “ar e conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat or w ou l d b e com pell ed to con cl ud e t o the con trary . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)( 4)( B ). S ee al so I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . U nderthi s defe r ent i al s t andar d, Shan C hen mustes t abl i s h t hatthe evi dence does notj us ts uppor ta contr aryconcl us i on but co m p els i t. S ee G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e m o r e e x a c t i n g w i th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e s a n a l i e n t o s h o w b y a “cl earpr obabi l i ty ” thathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof a pr ot ect ed groun d in the p roposed cou ntryof rem ov al . IN S v. S t evic, 46 7 U . S . 40 7 (198 4). S ee al so I N S v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 430 ( 1987) ( “w oul d be thr eat ened” s t andar d has no s ubj ect i ve component ) . I n m aki ng outa C A T cl ai m , the bur den of pr oof i s on the appl i cantt o es t abl i s h t hati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed i n hi s nat i ve co u n try . 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). Shan C hen cont ends i n hi s br i ef on a ppeal thathe has es t abl i s hed a w el l - founded fea rof per s ecut i on thr ough hi s w i fe’ s for ced s t er i l i zat i on. I n 1996, C ongr es s enac t ed the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ct( “I I R I R A ”) , w hi ch adde d the fol l ow i ng l anguage atthe end of I N A § 101( a) ( 42) ’ s defi ni t i on of r efuge e: Forpurpos es of det erm i nat i ons underthi s chapt er , a per s on w ho has been for ced t o aborta pr egnanc yort o under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orfor otherr es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, s hal l be dee m edW e e x ten d C h e v ro n d e f e re n c e to “ a n a g e n c y ' s c o n stru c tio n o f th e sta tu te w h ich it 2 admi ni s t er s . ” C hevr on U . S. A . , I nc. v. N atur al R es . D ef. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837, 842 (1 9 8 4 ). T he A t t orneyG ener al fur therconcl uded thatthe s t atut e’ s under l y i ng l egi s l at i ve and 3 enfor cementhi s t orydi d nots uppor text endi ng aut om at i c r efuge e s t atus t o s pous es . I d. at 538- 42. 6

t o have be en per s ecut ed on ac countof pol i t i cal opi ni on, and a pe r s on w ho has a w el l - founded f

earthathe ors he w i l l be for ced t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e ors ubj ectt o per s ecut i on fors uch fa i l ur e, r efus al , orr es i s t ance s hal l be dee m ed t o have a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on. IN A § 1 0 1 (a)(42 ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 ) (20 0 9 ). T he B oar d pr evi ous l yhel d t hat , underI N A § 101( a) ( 42) , a hus band w ho e sta b lish e d th a t h is w if

e u n d e rw e n t a f

o rc e d a b o rtio n o r ste riliza tio n w a s p e r se e n tit led to re f u g e e s ta tu s , s e e M a tte r o f C -Y -Z -, 2 1 I. & N . D e c . 9 1 5 , a n d M a tte r o f S -L -L -, 2 4 I. & N . D ec. 1. W e ext ended Chevr on defe r ence t o thi s i nt erpr et at i on bythe B oar d i n Sun 2 W en C hen v. A t t orneyG ener al , 491 F. 3d 100, 107- 08 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . H ow ever , the A t t orneyG ener al r ece nt l yoverrul ed B oar d pr ece denti n M att erof J - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. 52 0, con cl ud i ng that a pr op er r eading o f IN A § 1 01 (a) (42) does no tenco m pass a per se ent i t l ementt o as y l um forthe s pous es of thos e w ho have unde r gone a f or ced a bor t i on or i nv olunt aryst eri l i zat i on , i d. at52 9-30. R at her, the st atute ext end s r el i ef on l yt o those w ho have a ctual l yunder gone the pr ocedur es . See i d. 3 W e i ndepende nt l yr eac hed the s ame concl us i on w i th r es pectt o the pr oper i nt erpr et at i on of the pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e i n L i n- Z heng v. A t t orneyG ener al , 5577

F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (e n b a n c ) (o v e rru lin g S u n W e n C h e n ). T h e sta tu te is u n a m b ig u o u s a n d d o e s n o t e x te n d a u to m a tic re f u g e e s ta tu s to s p o u s e s . Id . a t 1 5 6

– 5 7 . T h e re f o re , the e x p e rie n c e s o f

o n e ’s s p o u se a re leg a llyin su f f icie n t to e sta b lish e lig ib ili ty foras y l um . I d. at156 ( “Thus, ther e i s no r oom forus t o concl ude thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o ext end r efuge e s t atus t o any one otherthan the i ndi vi dualw ho h a s e ith e r b e e n f o rc e d to s ubm i tt o an i nvol unt aryabort i on ors t er i l i zat i on, has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e or r efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e, orhas a w el l - founded f earof thatoccurr i ng i n the futur e. ”) . T he s t atut e ca nnotbe more cl eari n i t s r efe r ence t o a per s on r atherthan a coupl e. See i d. B o th L in-Z h en g an d M att er o f J-S - fo rec lose eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum in S h an C h en ’s cas e s ol el yon t he bas i s of hi s w i fe’ s al l eged f or ced s t er i l i zat i on. Shan C hen does not presentanyargum ent chal l eng i ng L i n-Z hen g’s i nterpret at i on of IN A § 1 01 (a) (42). T hu s, he ca n onl yes t abl i s h a bas i s foras y l um i f he s how s thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on or has a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on i n C hi na on ac countof hi s “otherr es i s t ance ” t o t he C hi nes e governm ent ’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es . L i n- Z heng, 557 F. 3d at157; M att erof J - S- , 24 I . & N . D ec. at538. T he phr as e otherr es is tance “cove r s a w i de r ange of c irc u m sta n c e s, in c lu d in g e x p re ss io n s o f g e n e ra l o p p o sitio n , atte m p ts to in ter f e re w ith enfor cementof governm entpol i cyi n part i cul arcas es , and otherovertform s of r es i s t ance t o the r equi r ement s of the fa m i l ypl anni ng l aw , ” s ee M att erof S- L - L - , 24 I . & N . D ec. at 10, butShan C hen pr oduced no e vi dence of r es i s t ance on hi s partt o C hi na’ s popul at i on8

contr ol pol i ci es . A ccor di ngl y , the evi dence does notcompel the conc l us i on thathe e x e rc is e d “ o th e r r e s is ta n c e ” to C h in a ’s p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l p o lic ie s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). In hi s bri ef, S han C hen con t end s that hi s r i gh tt o d ue p rocess w as vi olat ed b ecause the c h an g e in th e law d ep ri v ed h im o f a fu ll an d fa irh ea ri n g o n the issu es. S ee P et’r B r. 8. D ue pr oces s pr ot ect i ons ar e af for ded t o al i ens fac i ng r emoval . See A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . “The fundament al r equi r ementof due pr oces s i s the opportuni tyt o be hea r d ata meani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner . ” Id . W e a re n o t p e rs u a d e d th a t d u e p ro c e s s re q u ir e s a re m a n d in S h a n C h e n ’s c a s e . A l though t he age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of I N A § 101( a) ( 42) change d w i th r es pectt o s pous al e lig ib ili ty , an d w e o v e rru led S u n W e n C h e n , an a lien ’s e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m o n th e b a sis o f “ o th e r re sis tan c e ” h a s re m a in e d c o n sta n t. T h e B o a rd h a s lo n g re c o g n ize d , an d it cert ai nl ydi d atthe t i m e of Shan Chen’ s m er i t s hear i ng, thatan al i en’ s el i gi bi l i tyfor as y l um underI N A § 101( a) ( 42) i ncl uded el i gi bi l i tyforper s ecut i on orfea r ed per s ecut i on on acc ountof the al i en’ s ot herr es i s t ance t o fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . See, e. g. , M att erof J -S -, 2 4 I & N D e c . a t 5 2 7 ; L i v . A tt’ yG e n . o f U .S ., 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h is p a rt o f

IN A § 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ) h a s b e e n a t a ll tim e s re le v a n t in S h a n C h e n ’s c a s e . A l though he ar gues thathi s cas e s houl d be r emanded forcons i der at i on of the “other r es i s t ance ” i s s ue, he does notpoi ntt o anyevi dence i n the r ecor d thatcoul d s uppor ts uch a fi ndi ng, nordoes he al l ege a nyfac t s , notpr evi ous l ys ubm i t t ed, thatcoul d s uppor ts uch a9

fi ndi ng. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2 ( “A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs s hal l s t at e the new fac t s thatw i l l be pr oven ata hea r i ng t o be hel d i f the mot i on i s gr ant ed and s hal l be s uppor t ed byaff

i davi t s orot herevi dent i arym at er i al . ”) Subst ant i al evi dence al s o s uppor t s the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on thatShan C hen fa i l ed t o demonstr at e a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. H e di d notcl ai m anyper s onal h a rm a risin g f

ro m a v io latio n o f

C h in a ’s p o p u latio n c o n tro l p o licie s, a n d h e re m a in e d in C hi na forfoury ear s aft erhi s w i fe’ s al l eged i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on w i thoutfur ther incid en t. S ee L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (w h en fa m il ym em b ers r emai n i n pet i t i oner ’ s nat i ve countr yw i thoutm eet i ng harm , and ther e i s no i ndi vi dual i zed sh o w in g o f

p e rse c u tio n , the re a so n a b len e ss o f a lien ’s w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n is di m i ni s hed) . Shan C hen cont ends i n hi s br i ef thatthe 2005 C ountryR eportforC hi na re f e rs to th e d e ten tio n o f

ten s o f th o u sa n d s o f

in d iv id u a ls in p o p u latio n sc h o o ls in L in y i, S h a n d o n g P ro v in c e , fo r th e p u rp o se o f f o rc in g th e m o r th e ir re lativ e s to su b m it t o abort i on ors t er i l i zat i on, s ee Pet ’ rB r . 7- 8; A pp. 96, buthe has notes t abl i s hed thathe and thos e i ndi vi dual s det ai ned i n popul at i on s chool s ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, orthatther e i s any bas i s forhi m t o be det ai ned i n one. B ec au se S h an C h en fa il ed to sh o w p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a rea so n ab le fe ar o f f u ture p e rse c u tio n u n d e r th e lo w e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f re q u ire d f

o r a sy lu m , h e is n e c e ss a rily i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. at430- 32. I n addi t i on, th e re c o rd d o e s n o t co m p e l a c o n c lu sio n th a t h e m e t h is b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g th a t itis10

m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e w ill b e to rt u re d u p o n h is re tu rn to C h in a , 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.