I M G - 193 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- 2831

___________ T AI QUIN L I N, 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 a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 099- 525- 825) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

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

M ay12, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay28, 2010)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerT ai Q ui n L i n s eeks r evi ew of a de ci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A pp eal s ( “B IA ”) r end ered on M ay26 , 20 09 . F or the fo l l ow i ng reas on s, w e w i l l dis m i ss i n p a rta n dd e n yi n p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2 I . B ackgr ound L in, a na ti v e a n dcit izen o f C h ina, en tered the U n it ed S tat es in O ctob er 2 0 0 5 . In M ar ch 2006, he appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) , bas ed upon C hi na’ s coer ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . Speci fi cal l y , L i n cl ai m ed that , aft erhe and hi s w i fe ha d a daught eri n 2000, C h ines e o ff

ici als fo rciblyim p lanted L in’s w ife w ith an intr au teri n e d ev ice (IU D ). In 2003, L i n hi r ed a doc t ort o r emove the I U D . L i n’ s w i fe s t opped att endi ng her g o v e rn m e n t- m a n d a te dp h y s ic a l e x a m in a tio n s , b e c a m e p re g n a n t, a n dw e n t in to h id in g . O n D ece m ber11, 2004, L i n’ s w i fe ga ve bi rth t o tw i n s ons . She w as s t er i l i zed i m m edi at el yaft erthe bi rth, overL i n’ s and hi s w i fe’ s pr ot es t . O ffi ci al s i m pos ed a f i ne for v io la tin g f

a m ily p la n n in g la w s . B efor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , L i n cl ai m ed el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um bas ed upon hi s w i fe’ s s t er i l i zat i on. T he I Jdeni ed r el i ef, concludi ng thatL i n fai l ed t o pr ove the s te ri liz a tio n w a s “ f

o rc e d ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e IN A . L in ap p e a le d . O n M ay26, 2009, the B I A aff i rm ed the I J ’ s deci s i on on al t ernat i ve gr ounds . T he B I A obs erved thatthi s C ourthad r ece nt l yhel d thata s pous e w hos e partnerhas under gone a f o rce dsteri li za ti o n is no t auto m ati ca ll yeli g ible fo r refu g ee statu s. L in-Z h en g v . A tt ’y G en. , 557 F. 3d 147 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) . A ccor di ngl y , becaus e Li n coul d no l onger b e e lig ib le f

o r a sy lu m b a se dso lelyu p o n h is w if e ’s s ter ili z a tio n , the B IA su a sp o n te cons i der ed w hetherL i n’ s al l egat i ons coul d s upporta cl ai m of a w el l - founded f earof3

per s ecut i on on acc ountof Li n’ s “otherr es i s t ance ” t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am. See IN A § 101( a) ( 42) [8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ] . T he B I A concluded that , even i f he ha d “r es i s t ed” apopul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, L i n di d notpr es ents uffi ci entevi dence o f a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n b ase du p o n that resist an ce . T h e B IA th e re f o re d ism iss e dth e ap p e a l. T h is tim e ly co u n s e le dp e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . II. A n a ly sis W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval pur s uantt o I N A § 242( a) ( 1) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) ] . W e r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B I A . See Li v. A tt ’ yG en. , 400 F .3 d1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 5 ); A b d u la i v . A s h c ro f t, 2 3 9 F .3 d5 4 2 , 5 4 8 -4 9 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e r evi ew l egalconclus i ons de novo, s ee Ezea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and uphol d fac tual det erm i nat i ons s upport ed “byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T o s ucce ed on hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew , w e “mustfi nd thatthe evi dence notonl ys upport s thatconclus i on [thatL i n’ s appl i cat i on s houl d have be en g ra n te d ], b u t c o m p e ls it.” IN S v . E lia s -Z a c a ri a s , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n .1 (1 9 9 2 ). A. L i n does notdi s put e the B I A ’ s conclus i on thathe i s notaut om at i cal l yel i gi bl e for a s y lu m b a s e du p o n h is w if e ’s f o rc e ds te ri liz a tio n . S e e L in -Z h e n g , 5 5 7 F .3 da t 1 5 7 . I ns t ead, he s eeks r el i ef ba s ed upon pas tper s ecut i on thathe per s onal l ys uffe r ed on ac count4

o f h i s “ o th e rr e s i s t a n c e ” t o Ch i n a ’ s c o e r c i v e p o p u l a t i o n c o n tr o l p r o g r a m. S e e I NA § 101( a) ( 42) [8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ; s ee a l s o L i n- Z heng, 557 F. 3d at157 ( obs ervi ng that sp o u ses o f f

o rciblysteri li ze dw o m en m ayq u ali fyfo r asy lum if th eyw ere p erse cu ted f o r, orhave aw el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on due t o, “otherr es i s t ance ” t o a coe r ci ve p o p u lat ion co n tr o l pro g ram ). W e have cl os el yr evi ew ed the r ecor d and have confi rm ed thatL i n nevercl ai m ed befor e the I JorB I A thathe per s onal l yexper i ence d harm r i s i ng t o the l evelof per s ecut i on, al though he coul d have a tt empt ed t o do s o. B ecaus e Li n di d not admi ni s tr at i vel yexhaus ta pas tper s ecut i on cl ai m , w e mustdi s m i s s i tforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. See IN A § 242( d) ( 1) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ] ; A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F . 3 d5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). B. T o s i des t ep the admi ni s tr at i ve exhaus t i on pr obl em, L i n cont ends the B I A err ed by

“ [ p a y i n g ] n o a tt e n t i o n t o th e i s s u e o f p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n . ” L i n i mp l i e s th a t , d e s p i t e h i s o wn d e c isio n n o t to ra ise th e iss u e , the B IA h a da n a f f irm a tiv e d u tyto c o n sid e r w h e th e r h is a lle g a tio n s c o u ld s u p p o rta p a s t p e rs e c u tio n c la im . W e d i s a g r e e . Li n b o r e th e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g h i s e l i g i b i l i tyf o ra s y l u m. 8 C. F . R. § 1208. 13( a) . A thi s hear i ng befor e the I J , as now , L i n coul d have s how n thathe per s onal l ys uffe r ed per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s “otherr es i s t ance ” t o a coe r ci ve p o p u lat ion co n tr o l pro g ram . S ee , e.g., M att er o f J-S -, 2 4 I. & N . D ec . 5 2 0 , 5 2 7 (B IAL i n des cr i bed one i ns t ance of harm thatbefe l l hi m per s onal l y : he w as fi ned 18, 000 1 R M B sh o rtlya f

terh is s o n s w e re b o rn , an dh e p a idth e f in e in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , ap p a re n tly aft erhe fl ed C hi na. ( See A . R . 135- 36; 376- 77. ) L i n t es t i fi ed thathe had no f urther p rob lem s w ith C h ines e f am il yp lann ing o ff

ici als af ter he p aid th e f

ine. (A . R . 1 3 9 -40 . ) L in n ev er a rgu ed that p aym en t of the f ine c au sed h im the s o rto f se v ere ec o n o m ic ha rm th a t w o u ld c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n . S e e F a tin v . IN S , 1 2 F .3 d1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 dC ir . 1 9 9 3 ). L i n r el i es upon a dec i s i on bythe C ourtof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , Secai da- 2 R os al es v. I N S, 331 F. 3d 297, 306 ( 2d C i r . 2003) , w hi ch hel d that“the I Jhas an aff i rm at i ve obl i gat i on t o help es t abl i s h and deve l op the r ecor d i n the cour s e of . . . [the] p ro c e e d in g s.” E v e n ap a rt f ro m th e f a c t th a t S e c a id a -R o sa les is n o t b in d in g p re c e d e n t in ourC ourt , i tdoes nots upportL i n’ s pos i t i on thatan I Jhas an obl i gat i on t o devel op the evi dent i aryr ecor d on a cl ai m thatthe appl i cantdi d notr ai s e. 5 2 0 0 8 ); L i v . A tt’yG e n ., 4 0 0 F .3 d1 5 7 , 1 6 3 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, if L in h a de v id e n c e to su p p o rt su c h a c laim , itw a s in c u m b e n t up o n h im to p re se n t it . I n hi s pr ocee di ngs , L i n pr es ent ed l i tt l e, i f any , evi dence thathe per s onal l ys uffe r ed anyharm w hi l e he w as i n C hi na. I n l i ghtof the s par s e evi dent i aryr ecor d on the s ubj ect 1 and due t o L i n’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e s uch a c l ai m hi m s el f, w e cannotfaul tthe B I A for d e c lin in g to s p o n ta n e o u s ly at tr ib u te a p a s t p e rs e c u tio n c la im to L in . C. L i n nextcont ends he w oul d have pr es ent ed addi t i onal ( uns peci fi ed) evi dence that h e su f f e re dp e rse c u to ryh a rm in C h in a , b u t th e IJ im p ro p e rlylim ited th e p ro c e e d in g s to the i s s ue of hi s w i fe’ s s t er i l i zat i on. T hus , L i n att empt s t o attr i but e anydefi ci enci es i n the re c o rd to th e IJ b yc laim in g th e IJ “ h a da n a f f irm a tiv e d u tyto d e v e lo p th e re c o rd in h is c a s e .” 2 W h e n h e ap p e a re db e f o re th e B IA , L in n e v e r in d ica ted th a t th e IJ f a iled toT he B I A t ook thi s appr oach i n fai rnes s t o L i n, due t o the i nt erveni ng change i n the 3 l aw conce rni ng s pous al el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um bas ed upon a f or ced s t er i l i zat i on, w hi ch e l i mi n a t e dth e p r i o rb a s i s f o rLi n ’ s a s y l u m c l a i m.

6 adeq uatel ydev el op the record i n h i s case. L i n ther efore did not adm i nis trat i velyexh aust this clai m , an dw e m u st dism iss i t. S ee IN A § 2 4 2 (d)(1 ) [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 )]; A bdul r ahman, 330 F. 3d at594- 95; s ee a l s o B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 442, 448 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( a cl ai m thatthe I Jfai l ed i n the dutyt o ful l ydevel op a ca s e mustbe ar gued to the B IA ). D. T h e B IA su a sp o n te c o n sid e re dw h e th e r th e re c o rd c o u ldsu p p o rt ac laim th a t L in d idn o t ch o o se to ra ise h im se lf: w h e th e r L in c o u ldq u a lifyf o r re lief b a se du p o n a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof “otherr es i s t ance ” t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am. L i n ar gues thats ubs t ant i al evi dence does nots upportthe 3 B IA ’s co n clus ion that L in f ail ed to es tablish su ch a c lai m . L in co n tend s tha t th e re co rd c o m p e ls a c o n c lu sio n th a t h e e sta b lish e da re a so n ab le f e a r o f “ se v e re p u n ish m e n t” in C hi na, pr i m ar i l ybecaus e he e xpr es s ed ange rt o fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s w hen they o rd e re dh is w if

e to b e s te ri liz e d . S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e B IA ’s c o n c lu s io n . F o r a s y lu m p u rp o s e s , a “w el l - founded” feari ncl udes both a s ubj ect i vel ygenui ne fe arof per s ecut i on and an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyof per s ecut i on. Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ); A b d u lra h m a n , 3 3 0 F .3 da t 5 9 2 . E v e n if w e a ss u m e th a t L in a d e q u a telyA l though L i n al s o coul d have s at i s fi ed the obj ect i ve componentbyes t abl i s hi ng that 4 “ th e re is a p a ttern o r p ra c tice . . . o f p e rse c u tio n o f

a g ro u p o f

p e rso n s s im ilarly s i tuat ed. . . , ” 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A ) , L i n di d notcl ai m a “pa tt ern orpr act i ce” of persecut i on of si m i l arl y -s i tuated i nd i vidual s. 7 es t abl i s hed hi s s ubj ect i ve fe arthr ough hi s vague t es t i m onythathe fa ces uns peci fi ed “s ever e puni s hm ent ” i n C hi na, ourr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s no s upportforthe obj ect i ve componentof thi s cl ai m . L i n pr ovi des nothi ng t o compel a conc l us i on thathe e sta b lish e da re a so n ab le p o ss ib ili tyth a t C h in e se o f f icia ls w o u ldin d iv idu a llysin g le h im o u t f o r p e rs e c u tio n if

h e w e re to re tu rn to C h in a . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 2 )( iii) . 4 A c c o rd in g ly , h is c laim lac k s m e rit. E. B e c a u se L in f

a iled to m e e t th e lo w e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f f o r a sy lu m , h e a lso f

a iled to es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval . L ukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 182 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In a d d it ion , the re co rd d o es n o t com p el a c o n clus ion that L in w o u ld m o re l i kel ythan notbe t ortur ed i f he w er e t o r eturn t o C hi na. See i d. at183. I I I . C oncl us i on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s i n partand denyi n partthe pet i t i on for r e v i e w.