2005 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 Third C irc uit 10-18-2005 

# Ji ang v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3319

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ji ang v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 390. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/3901 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: 04- 3319 DI AN C HI A J I ANG, Pet i t i oner v . *A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S, A tt orneyG ener al

of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent * (A m en d ed p u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 4 3 (c))

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 77- 997- 710) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember16, 2005 Be f o r e : ROTH, M c KEE a n d F I S HER, C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober18, 2005)

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. D ian C h i Jia n g a sk s u s to re v iew a d e c isio n o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“B IA ”) a ff

irm ing the d ec isi o n o f a n Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) d en y ing Jian g ’sBe causewe write primarily for the pa

rties, we will recite only

the facts and proc edural 1 history that may be helpf ul to our brief discussion.

2 appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on fr om r emoval underthe Un i t e d Na t i o n s Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . 1

I. Si nce the B I A s um m ar i l yaff i rm ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, w e r evi ew the dec i s i on of the IJ a s th e f

in a l d e c is io n o f

th e B IA . D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( en banc ) . O urr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng i f the I J ’ s rul i ng i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . I

d. a t 2 4 7 . W e th e re f

o re m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r a re a so n a b le f a c t f in d e r c o u ld m ake the s ame det erm i nat i on as the I J bas ed upon the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d thatw as befor e the I J . I f s o, the r ecor d s uppor t s the I J ’ s rul i ng and w e mustdi s m i s s the pet i t i on f o r r e v ie w . I

d. a t 2 4 9 . W h e re , as h e re , the IJ’ s d e c isio n in v o lv e s a c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, the I J m us tgi ve s peci fi c r eas ons forhi s /herconcl us i on and the r eas ons m u s t h a v e “ a le g itim a te n e x u s ” to th e c re d ib ility ru lin g . Ba la s u b r a ma n r i m v . I NS , 143 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . A dver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs ar e al s o r evi ew ed for s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I

d. at161. A n adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w i l l be s us t ai ned

“ u n le s s . . . n o re a s o n a b le p e rs o n ” w o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e a p p lic a n t in c re d ib le . C hen v. A sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on to re v ie w f

in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ).3 II. T he I J found thatJ i ang’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e bec aus e: ( 1) s he w as not c o n v in c e d o f

Jia n g ’s a f

f ili a tio n w ith R o m a n C a th o licism d u e to th e in c o n sis ten c ies w ith in hi s t es t i m onyand hi s pr evi ous as s ert i ons t o i m m i gr at i on offi ci al s thathe w as a mem ber o f F a lu n G o n g ; (2 ) h is te stim o n yd u rin g th e h e a rin g lac k e d in ter n a l co n sis ten c yw ith resp ec t t o a n u m b er o f o ther issu es in clud ing h is place o f re side n ce , h is fathe r’s i nvol vementw i th R om an C athol i ci s m , and w hetherhe had a t t empt ed t o getcorr obor at i on f ro m h is c h u rc h . A n agenc y ’ s fi ndi ng of fa ctthatan appl i canthas fai l ed t o s how el i gi bi l i tyfor a sy lu m o r w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l is “ c o n c lu siv e u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). III . T o est abli sh a cl ai m for asy l um or w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , an ap pli cant m ust est abli sh that he/ she i s a “r efug ee. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 . A “refugee” i s defi ned as:

[A ]nyp erso n w h o is ou tsi d e a n yco u n tryo f su ch p erso n ’s n a tio n a lityo r, in th e c a se o f a p e rso n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u tsid e a n yc o u n tryin w h ich su c h p e rso n las t h a b itu a lly re sid e d , an d w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to , an d is unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f orher s el f of the p ro tec tio n o f

th a t co u n tryb e c a u se o f p e rse c u tio n o r a w e ll 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, or p o litic a l o p in io n . 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42)( A ). A n asy l um app l i cant bears the b urden o f prov i ng past4

p e rse c u tio n o r a w e ll fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (a ); A bdi l e v. A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 482 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A n appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e an a ctual and g e n u in e lyh e ld su b

jec tiv e f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n a n d sh o w th a t th e f e a r is o b jec tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . I

N S v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 4 8 0 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 3 0 -3 1 (1 9 8 7 ). T o q u a lifyf

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, an a lien m u st e sta b lish a c lea r p ro b a b ili ty that h is/h er li fe o r free d o m w o u ld b e thre aten ed o n ac co u n t of o n e o f th e f

ive s tatu tory g ro u n d s if

re m o v e d . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 ); IN S v . S tev ic , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 4 2 9 -3 0 (1 9 8 4 ). I n or dert o qual i fyforr el i ef unde rA r t i cl e I I I of the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, a n a lien m u st p ro v e th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e /sh e w o u ld b e “ to rtu re d ” if r emoved t o the pr opos ed countryof r emoval by , atthe i ns t i gat i on of, orw i th the cons ent o r a c q u ie s c e n c e o f

, s o m e o n e a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity. 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )( 4 ). J i ang ar gues that( 1) the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s nots uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d (2 ) h e is s ta tu to ri ly el ig ib le f o r a s y lu m u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ). Ji ang cl ai m s that there are tw o specifi c problem s und erl y i ng the IJ’ s adverse credi bil i tydeterm i nati on . F i rs t , Ji ang assert s that the IJ di d n ot consi der the record as a w hol e and a r gues thatthe evi dence as a w hol e s uppor t s a gr antof as y l um . Second, J i ang co n tend s tha t his t esti m o n yw as in terna ll yco n sist en t. H e a lso a rgu es th at ev en if th ere w er e di s cr epanc i es , theyw er e notm at er i al t o the I J ’ s as y l um det erm i nat i on. J i ang m i ni m i zes hi s pr evi ous s t at ement s t o i m m i gr at i on offi ci al s and ac know l edges thathe l at erSince J iangwas una ble to establish that he wa s a victim of past per secution in China as 2 a re sult of his Rom an Catholic belief s, we ne ed only

focus on whether Jiang met his burden of demonstratinga we ll founded fe ar of future persecution.

5 r ej ect ed thos e s t at ement s hi m s el f. H e bl ames the contr adi ct i ons on “coa chi ng” he re c e iv e d f

ro m s m u g g le rs w h o a d v is e d h im to m a k e th e a d m itte d ly f a ls e s ta te m e n ts . A c c o rd in g to Jia n g , h is p rio r f a lse sta tem e n ts s o b ias e d th e IJ a g a in st h im th a t it“ u n d u ly compromi s ed” hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rhear i ng. ( Pet . B r . at10. ) H ow ever , r egar dl es s of the v era cityo f Jian g ’s ex p lana ti o n , su b stan ti al ev iden ce n ev erthe less su p p o rt s the IJ’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . Jian g b ea rs th e b u rde n o f p rov ing p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e r s e c u t i o n th r o u g h c r e d i b l e t e s t i m o n y. See 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (a ); A b d ile , 242 F. 3d 482; 2 Zu b e da v . A sh c ro

ft , 33 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . J i ang’ s cr edi bi l i tyas a w i tnes s w as furtherdamaged w hen he t es t i fi ed thathe w as unaw ar e thati tw as i l l egal t o come t o the Un i t e d S t a t e s wi th s o me o n e e l s e ’ s p a s s p o r t . He a l s o a d mi t t e d th a th e l i e d o n two s epar at e occ as i ons t o I N S offi ci al s . J i ang s t at ed thatnotonl yw as he a mem berof Fal un G o n g b u t als o h e h a d b e e n a rre ste d p re v io u slya n d f e a re d p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is r el i gi ous bel i efs i f r eturned t o C hi na. A l though thi s does notes t abl i s h thatJ i ang w as not tel li n g the truth at his m erit s h ea ri n g , itd o es su p p o rtthe IJ’s c o n ce rns a b o u t Ji an g ’s cr edi bi l i ty . T he I J cons i der ed J i ang’ s expl anat i on butgave i tl i t t l e w ei ghtbeca us e J i ang had enough t i m e t o r econs i derhi s act i ons and dec i de t o t es t i fytruthful l y . T hus , w e ca nnot concl ude thatno r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d have be en abl e t o fi nd J i ang cr edi bl e as6

re q u ir e d b yla w . See Chen 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 2 2 . A lth o u g h w e h av e p rev iou slyca u ti o n ed ag ains t placing too m u ch w eigh t on airpo rt in te rv ie w s in a s s e s s in g th e c re d ib ility o f a n a lie n , se e B a la su b ra m a n rim , 143 F. 3d 157; Se n a th i r a

j a h v . I NS , 1 5 7 F . 3 d 2 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), tho se c o n ce rns a re n o t prese n t here b ec au se th e IJ reli ed u p o n sev era l othe r fa ctors in a sses sing Jian g ’s cred ibil ity . In ad d it ion , Jian g d o es n o t cha ll en g e the m an n er in w h ich th e IN S interview s w ere c o n d u c ted o r th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e a irp o rt in ter v iew . M o re o v e r, d e sp ite Jia n g ’s c laim to th e c o n tra ry , the in c o n sis ten c ies th e IJ f o c u se d o n w e re m a ter ial.

“ [ W ]h e re th e d isc re p a n c ies b e tw e e n a n a irp o rt in ter v iew a n d th e a lien ’s te stim o n yg o to the hea r tof the cl ai m , theycert ai nl ys uppor tan adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. ” C hen , 376 F. 3d 224 ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . Forexampl e, ther e i s confl i ct i ng tes tim o n ya b o u t w h e th e r Jia n g is a m e m b e r o f F a lu n G o n g o r a R o m a n C a th o lic. T h a t is har dl yi m m at er i al ; i tgoes t o the hea r tof hi s cl ai m . J i ang w as al s o i ncons i s t entabout w h e re h e re s id e s a s w e ll a s w h e th e r h e liv e s w ith h is c o u s in s . J i ang mayhave be en abl e t o over come t he contr adi ct oryt es t i m onyw i th s uffi ci ent corr obor at i on of hi s cl ai m forr el i ef. “[I ] f the tr i erof fa ctei therdoes notbel i eve the a p p lica n t o r d o e s n o t k n o w w h a t to b e liev e , the a p p lica n t’s f a ilu re to c o rro b o ra te h is t es t i m onycan be fat al t o hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. ” S i dh u v . I NS , 2 2 0 F .3 d 1 0 8 5 , 1 0 9 0 (9 th C i r . 2000) . T he I J art i cul at ed conc r et e, s peci fi c, and coge ntr eas ons w hi ch have “a le g itim a te n e x u s ” to h e r c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . B a la su b ra m a n rim , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 6 2 . T h is7

r ecor d s uppor t s thatcr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. V II. F o r a ll o f

th e a b o v e re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .