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- 2770

___________ XUE J I N C HE N, Pet i t i oner

v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n 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 ( A gencyN o. A 098- 596- 558) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl 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)

A pr i l 14, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L I D SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay20, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM P et i t i on er X ue Ji n C hen seeks r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ (“B IA ”) f

inal o rde r of

rem o v al. In it s o rde r, the B IA af firm ed the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’sC hen fi l ed a s econd a s y l um appl i cat i on i n N ovember2006. 1 2 ( “I J ”) deci s i on t o denyC hen’ s appl i cat i on 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 ”) . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I . C hen i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na w ho l i ved i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. She ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thouti ns pect i on i n D ece m ber2004 and w as s ubs equent l ychar ged w i th r emovabi l i tyunderI N A § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) . I n O ct ober2005, C hen appl i ed for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C A T cl ai m i ng thats he expe r i ence d pas tper s ecut i on and fe ar s futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng p o l i c y. 1 A t th e a d m in istra tiv e h e a rin g , C h e n tes tifie d th a t sh e f irst b e c a m e p re g n a n t in C hi na i n J anuary2001, atage e i ght een. She w as notm arr i ed t o the fa therof the chi l d, O yung Si ng H i ( “O yung”) atthe t i m e. A ft erC hen di s cover ed s he w as pr egnant , s he w ent t o O yung’ s hous e t o hi de. C hen t es t i fi ed thats he s t ay ed ther e unt i l M ar ch 2001, w hen g o v e rn m e n t o f

f icia ls a rriv e d to c h e c k th e ir id e n tit ies . U p o n in sp e c tio n , the o f f icia ls d is c o v e re d th a t s h e w a s n o t f ro m th a t c o m m u n ity. C hen t es t i fi ed thatoffi ci al s then t ook hert o the l ocal bi r th contr ol offi ce a nd per form ed t es t s on her , w hi ch r evea l ed thats he w as pr egnant . T he off i ci al s then t ook C hen t o a hos pi t al w her e an abor t i on w as per form ed aga i ns therw i l l . A ft erthe abort i on, C hen cl ai m ed thatthe off i ci al s w arned herthati f s he gotpr egnantagai n, s he w oul d be3

su b jec t to ste riliza tio n . C h e n tes tifie d th a t af terth e a b o rtio n , sh e c o n tin u e d to liv e w ith O yung and thattheypl anned t o m arryi n M ay2004. O n the morni ng of M ay11, 2004, C hen and O yung had a tr adi t i onal m arr i age c el ebr at i on atC hen’ s hous e and then att empt ed t o r egi s t erthei rm arr i age. C hen and O yung w er e notabl e t o r egi s t erfor m arr i age thatday , as a phy s i cal exam of C hen w as fi r s tr equi r ed. D ur i ng the exa m i nat i on th e f o llo w in g d a y , o f

f icia ls d isc o v e re d th a t C h e n w a s p re g n a n t. C h e n tes tifie d th a t b irth contr ol offi ci al s arr i ved s hor t l yther eaf t erand per form ed an abort i on agai ns therw i l l and decr eed thats he coul d notgetm arr i ed orbecome pr egnantfortw o y ear s . A l though the off i ci al s di d n ot r equ i re that s he b e subjectt o IU D i nsert i on atthat t i m e, on cross e x a m in a tio n C h e n tes tifie d th a t th e yc a m e lo o k in g f o r h e r o n th re e se p a ra te o c c a sio n s in an att emptt o t ake he rfors t er i l i zat i on. A ppr oxi m at el ythr ee mont hs l at er , C hen l eftC hi na w i thoutO yung; theyno l onger have ar el at i ons hi p. I n M ay2006, w hi l e i n the U ni t ed St at es , C hen marr i ed and l at ergave bi r th t o a s on. C hen t es t i fi ed thats he fe ar s r eturni ng t o C hi na bec aus e s he w ant s t o have m or e chi l dr en and Chi na onl yal l ow s one chi l d. Fur therm or e, s he bel i eves s he w oul d be s u b j e c tt o s t e r i l i z a t i o n a n d wo u l d b e f o r c e d t o u n d e r g o a n a b o r t i o n s h o u l d s h e b e c o me p re g n a n t. I n a n Oc t o b e r2 0 0 7 o p i n i o n , th e I J d e n i e d Ch e n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T pr ot ect i on, fi ndi ng thatC hen fa i l ed t o offe rany m eani ngful corr obor at i ng evi dence t o s upporthercl ai m s . I n addi t i on, the I J found that4

ther e w er e unexpl ai ned i ncons i s t enci es betw een Chen’ s hear i ng t es t i m onyand heras y l um appl i cat i on, w hi ch underm i ned hercr edi bi l i ty . C hen appe al ed the dec i s i on and, i n M ay 2 0 0 9 , the B IA d ism iss e d h e r a p p e a l. T h e B IA a g re e d w ith th e IJ th a t C h e n f a iled to pr ovi de “r eas onabl yavai l abl e corr obor at i ve evi dence ” i n s upportof herappl i cat i on for as y l um . ( A . R . 4. ) T he B I A al s o agr eed w i th the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyrul i ng, fi ndi ng thatther e w er e “va l i d m at er i al om i s s i ons ” betw een Chen’ s hear i ng t es t i m onyand her a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n s . (I d . a t 3 .) C h e n f ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I I . T h is C o u rth a s a u th o ri ty to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) . “[W ] hen the B I A both 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 the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew fac tual f in d in g s, in c lu d in g a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s, f o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . S e e B u tt v. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A n adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng m us tbe uphel d “unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o conclude t o the c o n tr a ry.” B e ri s h a

j v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 8 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )). B ec au se C h en fil ed h er a p p li ca ti o n fo r reli ef af ter th e e n ac tm en t of

the R E A L ID Ac to f 2 0 0 5 , th e BI A’ s c r e d i b i l i tyd e t e rmi n a t i o n s a r e g o v e rn e d b yth e Ac t . S e e Ch u k wu v. A t t ’yG en. , 48 4 F . 3d 18 5, 18 9 (3d C i r. 20 07 ). U nd er the R E A L ID A ct , an IJ m aybaseW h ile a c k n o w led g in g th e R E A L ID A c t cr e d ib ili tysta n d a rd , C h e n a p p e a rs to 2 a rg u e th a t th is C o u rt sh o u ld a p p lyth e p re -R E A L ID A c t cr e d ib ili tysta n d a rd a s s e t o u t in S ec aida -R o sales v . IN S , 3 3 1 F . 3 d 2 9 7 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), a p re-R E A L ID A ct ca se. (Pe t. B r. 9 -1 0 .) C h e n a lso c ites K a d ia v . G o n z a les , 5 0 1 F .3 d 8 1 7 , 8 2 1 -2 2 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), to s uppor therar gum entthatom i s s i ons m us tbe cons i der ed i n the t ot al i tyof the c irc u m sta n c e s. (P e t. B r. 1 0 -1 1 .) K a d ia is a lso a p re -R E A L ID A c t ca se , an d th e S e v e n th C i r cui texpl ai ned that , underthe R E A L I D A ct , an i m m i gr at i on j udge s houl d notbas e an adver s e cr edi bi l i tydeci s i on on m i nori ncons i s t enci es or“di s cr edi totherw i s e per s uas i ve te s tim o n yb e c a u s e o f

a m is s p e llin g in th e a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n .” K a d ia , 5 0 1 F .3 d a t 8 2 2 . H o w e v e r, w e a g re e w ith th e B IA th a t C h e n ’s o m iss io n s a re n o t m in o r a n d th a t th e yg o to th e h e a rto f

h e r c la im s . 5 h is c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n o n o b se rv a tio n s o f th e a p p lica n t’s d e m e a n o r, th e p lau sib ili ty of the appl i cant ’ s s t ory , and on the cons i s t encyof the appl i cant ’ s s t at ement s . See I N A § 2 0 8 (b )( 1 )( B )( iii) ; G a b u n iya v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 6 3 F .3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 2 n .7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he I J found C hen’ s t es t i m onyi ncr edi bl e, part i cul ar l ybecaus e i tw as not co n sist en t w ith h er a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n . U p o n rev iew o f th e re co rd, w e f ind the B IA ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on t o be s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . B utt , 429 F. 3d at433. A s m ent i oned, C hen t es t i fi ed thatfami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s al l egedl ythr eat ened h e r w ith s te ri liz a tio n th re e tim e s a f te r h e r a lle g e d s e c o n d f o rc e d a b o rt io n . (A .R . 1 3 6 -3 7 .) C h e n f u rth e r te stif

ied th a t sh e d e sire s to h a v e m o re c h ild re n , w h ich sh e c o u ld n o t d o if steri li ze d . (Id. at 13 0 . ) W e a g ree w ith the B IA that thes e p ri o r th rea ts of steri li za ti o n are centr al t o C hen’ s as y l um cl ai m and thatherfai l ur e t o i ncl ude them i n heras y l um a p p l i c a t i o n i s s i g n i f

i c a n ta n d u n d e rm i n e s h e rc r e d i b i l i ty. 2 M or eover , C hen di d notpr ovi de a pl aus i bl e expl anat i on forthe omi s s i ons . A tthe hear i ng, C hen s t at ed the r eas on s he di d noti ncl ude the i nci dent s i n herappl i cat i on w as6

beca us e s he fe l tthats he “[ di d] nothave t o w r i t e t oo det ai l ed. I tm i ghtbe t oo compl i cat ed. ” ( A . R . 137. ) I n herbr i ef, C hen ar gues thatthe omi s s i ons w er e “not u n rea so n ab le” b ec au se sh e a n ti cipa ted testi fy ing in g rea ter de tai l atthe h ea ri n g . (P et. B r. a t 9 .) S u c h e x p lan a tio n s d o n o t co m p e l a d if f e re n t re su lt an d a re th e re f o re in su f f icie n t to o v e r c o m e th e B I A ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i ty d e t e rm i n a t i o n . S e e e . g . , E z e a g w u v . M u k a s e y, 5 3 7 F . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 9 -40 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (up h o lding ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing w h ere p eti ti o n er “ fo rgo t” t o m en ti o n h is de tention an d ab u se); C h en , 3 7 6 F . 3 d at 22 2 (“W e a re r equi r ed t o s us t ai n an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on ‘ unl es s . . . no r eas onabl e per s on’ w o u ld h av e f

o u n d the a p p li ca n t i n cre d ible. ” (c it ati o n o m itted)) I n addi t i on t o m aki ng an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, the B I A al s o concl uded that C h e n f a iled to m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f b a se d o n th e a b se n c e o f re a so n a b lya v a ilab le c o rr o b o ra tin g e v id e n c e . T h e IJ a n d B IA m a ye x p e c t r e a s o n a b le c o rr o b o ra tio n o f a c la im . A b d u lai v . A sh c ro f

t, 23 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). A n a p p lica n t’s f a ilu re to corr obor at e mayunderm i ne hercas e i f: ( 1) the fa ct s ati s s ue ar e fa ct s forw hi ch corr ob orat i on m ayreas on ablybe ex pected; (2) the ap pli cant fai l ed to corr ob orat e tho se fac t s ; and ( 3) the appl i canthas notadequa t el yexpl ai ned herfai l ur e t o do s o. I d. W e fi nd th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t C h e n f a iled to p ro v id e su f

f icie n t co rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e is s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . A l though C hen t es t i fi ed thatherpar ent s and br otherar e aw ar e of he rexper i ence s in C h in a , n e ith e r p ro v id e d a lette r o r a f f id a v it i n su p p o rt o f

h e r c laim s. W e a g re e th a t itIn h er b ri ef , C h en p o ints t o an ab o rt ion ce rt ifi ca te sh e p lace d in the rec o rd 3 a s c o rro b o ra tio n o f

h e r te stim o n y . (P e t. B r. at 1 0 , 1 1 .) H o w e v e r, th e 2 0 0 5 C h in a P ro f ile of A s y l um C l ai m s and C ountryC ondi t i ons , pl ace d i n the r ecor d bythe I J w i thout o b jec tio n , sta tes th a t d o c u m e n ts a p p e a rin g to b e a b o rtio n c e rtific a tes a re d o c u m e n ts “ iss u e d b yh o sp itals u p o n a p a tien t’s re q u e st a f tera v o lu n tar ya b o rtio n ” a n d a re u se d in s uppor tof r eques t s fors i ck l eave fol l ow i ng an abort i on. ( A . R . 119- 20, 171. ) T hus , the cert i fi cat e al one does notcompel the conc l us i on thatC hen, w ho w as under age w hen s he had the all eged abo rt i on s, w as subj ectt o an i nv olunt aryabo rt i on . S ee C hen v. G on zal es, 4 3 4 F . 3 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 8 -19 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 w as r eas onabl e forthe B I A t o have e xpect ed corr obor at i on fr om C hen i n the form of l ett er s oraff

i davi t s fr om fami l ym ember s w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the eve nt s under l y i ng her a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . W e f u rth e r a g re e w ith th e B IA th a t C h e n ’s e x p lan a tio n s f o r f a ili n g to su b m it co rrob o rati n g ev iden ce w ith h er a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n are inad eq u ate. W h en ask ed b ythe IJ w hys he di d notpr ocur e a l ett erfr om herbr other , C hen r epl i ed, “i ti s j us teas i ert o t al k on the phone. ” ( A . R . at134. ) W hen as ked w hyherpar ent s di d nots end a l ett er corr obor at i ng hert es t i m ony , s he s t at ed thatthey“al w ay s comm uni cat e byphone” a nd that they“don’ tknow how t o w r i t e C hi nes e. ” ( I d. at133. ) A l though w e r ecogni ze thati tm ay h av e b ee n d ifficu ltfo r C h en to h av e im m ed iat elyo b tai n ed letters fro m fa m il ym em b ers s t i l l l i vi ng i n C hi na, a per i od of tw o y ear s pas s ed betw een Chen’ s fi r s tappea r ance and her m erit s h ea ri n g . T h u s, itw as n o t un rea so n ab le t o ex p ec t C h en to h av e p roc u red letters f ro m f a m ilym e m b e rs d u rin g th a t ti m e , sp e c if ica llysin c e C h e n a d m itt e d th a t sh e is in r egul arcont actbyt el ephone w i th herpar ent s and br other . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd thatthe B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . 38

B e c a u se C h e n d id n o t m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f a s to h e r a sy lu m c laim , h e r c laim forw i thhol di ng of r emoval nece s s ar i l yfai l s , as does hercl ai m forpr ot ect i on underthe C A T . S e e Y u v . A tt’yG e n ., 5 1 3 F .3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.