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 2-16-2010 

# Y it ang S he ng 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 . 08-4805

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 author i 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
" Y it an g S he n g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1894. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/18941 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- 4805

___________ YI T ANG S HE NG, Pet i t i oner

v . TH E 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 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 042- 710- 065) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R os al i nd K . M al l oy

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

February10, 2010 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: February16, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Y i t ang S hen g p et i t i on s for r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ (“ B IA ” ) f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n .2 I. Sheng, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, ent er ed the U n ited S tate s o n a J-1 v isa in S e p tem b e r 1 9 8 7 . In N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 8 , h e m a rrie d Ju a n ita D i l an, a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. A bouta mont h aft ertheyw er e mar r i ed, M r . Sheng re tu rn e d to C h in a to f

u lf ill th e f o re ig n re sid e n c yre q u ire m e n t o f h is v isa . A p p ro x im a tely t en mont hs aft erhe r etur ned t o C hi na, M s . Sheng gave bi r t h t o a chi l d byanotherm an, buts t i l l r emai ned mar r i ed t o M r . Sheng. A ft erM r . Sheng ful fi l l ed hi s for ei gn r es i dency requi rem ent, he reenter ed the U nit ed S t at es i n July19 90 and w as adm i t t ed as a co n d it ion al l aw fu l perm an en t r esid en t ( “L P R ”).

I n M ay1992, t he Shengs j oi nt l yfi l ed an I - 751 pet i t i on t o r emove t he condi t i ons of M r . Sheng’ s L PR s t atus . I n J ul y1992, L i s a H oechs t , an off i cerw i t h t he form er I N S , i nterview ed them i nd i vidual l yt o assess the v al i dityof thei r m arr i age. M s. Sheng i ndi cat ed dur i ng heri nt ervi ew thats he had be en pai d t o m arr yM r . Sheng. I n l i ght o f th is in te rv ie w , IN S te rm in a te d h is L P R s ta tu s .

I n M ay1994, I N S i ni t i at ed deport at i on pr ocee di ngs ( now r efe r r ed t o as r emoval pr ocee di ngs ) agai ns tM r . Sheng. W hen he di d notappea ratan A ugus t1997 hear i ng, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) or der ed hi s r emoval i n abs ent i a. M r . Sheng s ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen, w hi ch the I J gr ant ed i n M ay1998. T he ca s e w as c on t i nu e d t o a l l ow M r . She ng t o p r e pa r e a c ha l l e ng e t o I N S’ s t e r mi na t i on of hi s LPR s ta tu s .T he I J hel d m ul t i pl e hea r i ngs betw een 1998 a nd 2002 butdi d notr eac h 1 t he mer i t s of the ca s e. 3

In M a y2 0 0 2 , w h ile M r. S h e n g ’s c a se w a s s til l p e n d in g , IN S sp e c ial a g e n ts 1 M a u r i c e Ha l l a n d Da v i d Ch r i s t i n o v i s i t e d th e S h e n g s ’ a p a r t me n ti n Be t h l e h e m, P e n n sy lv a n ia, a n d o b tain e d a n a f f id a v it fro m M s. S h e n g sta tin g , inte r a lia, th a t sh e “ o n ly m arr i ed [M r . Sheng] fort he moneyand s o he coul d gethi s gr een c ar d. ” ( A dm i n. R ec. at 825. ) M r . Sheng m oved t o s uppr es s the af fi davi t , ar gui ng thatthe I N S agent s had obt ai ned i tvi a thr eat s and coe r ci on. T he I J deni ed the mot i on i n J une 2002.

O vert he cour s e of tw o m er i t s hear i ngs , hel d i n N ovember2003 and J une 2 0 0 5 , res p e c tiv e ly , the IJ h e a rd tes tim o n yf ro m th e S h e n g s, H o e c h st, S p e c ial A g e n ts H a ll and C hr i s t i no, and thr ee otherw i t nes s es . D ur i ng thes e tw o hear i ngs , M s . Sheng t es t i fi ed o n fo u r sep ara te oc ca sion s. T h e IJ a lso rev iew ed a v ideo tape rec o rdin g o f M s. S h en g ’s 1 9 9 2 IN S in te rv ie w .

I n N ovember2005, t he I J i s s ued a w r i t t en dec i s i on uphol di ng the G o v e rn m e n t’ s te rm in a tio n o f M r. S h e n g ’s L P R s ta tu s a n d o rd e ri n g h is re m o v a l to C h in a . In doing so, t he IJ concluded t hat “the o verw helm i ng ci rcum st anti al evidence in this case c lea rlyin d ica tes th a t [ M r. S h e n g ’s] m a rria g e w a s n o t bona f i de . ” (D ec isi o n o f IJ a t 33 . ) T he I J , w ho char act er i zed the document aryevi dence s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof the mar r i age as “meager , ” ( s ee i d. at35) , not ed that [a]tt he ti m e t heyw ere m arr i ed, [t he S hen gs] sp o k e n o c o m m o n lan g u a g e , an d th e ya p p e a r to4 have ha d l i t t l e i n comm on ot herthan w or ki ng f o r th e sa m e e m p lo y e r. In d e e d , in a d d iti o n to t heirno t able cul tural differ ences, there w as a con spi cuo us age g ap b et w een them as w el l as a s i gni fi cantdi ffe r ence i n educa t i on and backgr ound. M or eover , s hor t l yaft erm arr y i ng [M r . Sheng] , M s . Sheng beca m e pr egnantby anotherm an and ul t i m at el ygave bi r t h t o t hat c h i l d wh i l e [ M r . S h e n g ] wa s i n Ch i n a . By contr as t , the r ecor d i s uncl earas t o w hetherthe Shengs ’ m arr i age w as evercons um m at ed, and even i f the Shengs di d engage i n s exual r el at i ons , i ts eems thattheydi d s o onl yonce dur i ng the cour s e of thei rnear l y17- y ear m arriage . A d d it ion all y , the S h en g s li v ed ap art form os tof thei rm arr i age, part i cul ar l ydur i ng t he t i m es w hen [M r . Sheng] r eturned t o C hi na, w hen he w or ked i n N ew H ampshi r e and other l ocat i ons w hi l e s he l i ved i n Penns y l vani a, and w hen he moved t o N ew Y ork C i t yw hi l e s he, agai n, r emai ned i n Penns y l vani a. (I d . a t 3 3 -3 4 .) T h e IJ f

u rth e r e x p lain e d th a t “[ m ]o st d a m n in g to [ M r. S h e n g ’s] a rg u m e n ts aboutt he bo na f

i des o f h is m arriage . . . is th e testi m o n yo f h is w ife.” (Id. at 34 . ) T h e IJ em ph asi zed that , bo t h in the 1 99 2 IN S i nterview and du ri ng the 2 00 2 h om e vis i t , M s. S h e n g a d m itt e d th a t sh e h a d b e e n p a id to m a rryM r. S h e n g . A lth o u g h M s. S h e n g , in t es t i m onybefor e the I J , cl ai m ed thats he w as underthe i nfl uence of drugs on t he dayof th e 1 9 9 2 IN S in ter v iew , the IJ “ w a tch e d th e v id e o tap e o f h e r in ter v iew a n d f

o u n d h e r to be cohe r entand l uci d. ” ( I d. ) M or eover , al t hough M s . Sheng cl ai m ed thather2002 aff i davi tw as t he pr oductof coe r ci on, the I J found thatthe s peci al agent s ’ t es t i m onyw asD u ri n g h er Ju n e 2 0 0 5 test im o n y , M s. S h en g ad m itted th at sh e a n d M r. 2 Sheng had s epar at ed i n 2004. 5 cre d ible an d that “the re is no rea so n to d o u b t th e v era cityo f [ the a ff idav it ]. ” (Id . ) A ddi t i onal l y , t he I J s t at ed thatM s . Sheng w as “def ens i ve and e vas i ve” dur i ng her te s tim o n y . (I d . a t 3 5 .)

2 M r . Sheng appea l ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, butthe B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al as unt i m el yand s ubs equent l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. M r . Sheng, r epr es ent ed bynew c o u n se l, su b se q u e n tlyf iled a m o tio n re q u e stin g th e B IA to a c c e p t h is u n tim e lya p p e a l, ar gui ng t hathi s form ercouns el had pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance i n fi l i ng the appe al l at e. T he B I A gr ant ed the mot i on i n D ece m ber2007.

I n N ovember2008, t he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. T he B I A s t at ed that , contr aryt o M r . Sheng’ s cont ent i on, the I J pr oper l ycons i der ed al l of the ev iden ce . T h e B IA also co n cu rred w ith the IJ’s c o n clus ion that the d o cu m en tary evi dence M r . Sheng s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof the mar r i age w as “meager , ” obs ervi ng that m o st of the e v iden ce p o st- d ated the 1 9 9 2 IN S interview . F inally , the B IA rejected M r. S h en g ’s arg u m en t th at th e IJ b ase d h er d ec isi o n o n “im p erm issi b le sp ec u lat ion . ” M r. Sheng now s eeks r evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overM r . Sheng’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew pur s uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W e re v iew the B IA ’s de cisi o n ad o p ti n g an d af firm ing the IJ’s6

deci s i on fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( e n b a n c ) ; s e e a l s o Hu a n g v . M u k a s e y , 5 2 3 F . 3 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 9 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ On a p p e a l , we r evi ew t o det erm i ne w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the fa ctual fi ndi ngs under l y i ng t he I J ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng t he natur e of the mar r i age . . . . ”) . U nderthi s defe r ent i al sta n d a rd o f

re v iew , w e m u st u p h o ld th e a g e n c y ’s f in d in g s “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

A n a l i e n who marr i e s a U ni t e d St a t e s c i t i z e n mayob t a i n c on di t i on a l LPR s t atus . See 8 U . S. C . § 1186a( a) ( 1) . I n t he ni nety - dayper i od i m m edi at el ybefor e the s econd a nni ver s aryof the al i en’ s obt ai ni ng condi t i onal L PR s t atus , the al i en maypet i t i on t o r e mo v e t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s . S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 6 a ( c ) ( 1 ) , ( d ) ( 2 ) . T h e p e t i t i o n mu s ts h o w, i nt eral i a, t hatt he mar r i age “ w as notent er ed i nt o forthe purpos e of pr ocur i ng [the] al i en’ s admi s s i on as an i m m i gr ant . ” See 8 U . S. C . § 1186a( d) ( 1) . I f the A t t orneyG ener al det erm i nes t hatt he mar r i age i s notbona fi de, the al i en’ s L PR s t atus i s t erm i nat ed. See 8 U . S. C . § 1186a( c) ( 3) ( C ) . T he al i en ca n s eek r evi ew of thi s det erm i nat i on i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , w her e the A t t or neyG ener al m us ts how , bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , th a t th e m a rria g e is a sh a m . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (c )(3 )(D ). T h e re lev a n t in q u iryis
w hethert he coupl e “i nt end[e d] t o es t abl i s h a l i fe t ogetheratthe t i m e theyw er e mar r i ed. ” B ark v. I N S, 511 F. 2d 1200, 1201 ( 9t h C i r . 1975) . T he coupl e’ s conductaft erthe m arr i age i s r el evantonl yt o t he ext entthati tevi dence s thei rs t at e of mi nd atthe t i m e theyBe c a u s e M r . S h e n g d i d n o tp r e s e n th i s two o t h e rc l a i ms t o th e BI A, we 3 l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert hem her e. See A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e not e, how ever , thatthes e unexha us t ed cl ai m s appea rt o l ack m e rit. 7 m arr i ed. I d. at1202.

T he s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t hi s cas e s uppor t s the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatt he S h en g s’ m arriage w as n o t bo n a f ide. F ir st, o n tw o sep ara te oc ca sion s – ten y ea rs ap art f ro m o n e a n o th e r – M s . S h e n g a d m itte d th a t s h e h a d b e e n p a id to m a rr yM r. S h e n g . T hes e admi s s i ons ar e s uppor t ed bya vi deot ape r ecor di ng of her1992 i nt ervi ew and the test im o n yo f th ree IN S o ff ici als. S ec o n d , M r. S h en g su b m itted o n lyli m it ed d o cu m en tary e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f

th e m a rria g e , an d th e B IA c o rre c tlyo b se rv e d th a t m u c h o f th is in f o rm a tio n c o n c e rn e d e v e n ts th a t o c c u rre d a f ter th e 1 9 9 2 IN S in ter v iew (w h ich itse lf t ook pl ace near l yfoury ear s aft ert heym arr i ed) . Fi nal l y , the ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ci t ed byt he I J , es peci al l yt he fa ctt hatM r . and M s . Sheng s pentm os tof thei rm arr i age l i vi ng ap art i n d iffe ren t st ates, sug g ests that the c o u p le did n o t i n tend to es tablish a li fe tog ethe r.

M r . Sheng ar gues t hatthe I J fai l ed t o expl ai n w hys he found the t es t i m ony of the G ov ernm ent’ s w i t nesses cr edibl e or w hyshe “dis cou nted” the tes t i m on yof M s. S h e n g a n d h is o th e r w itn e ss e s. W e re c o g n ize th a t th e IJ c o u ld h a v e b e e n m o re e x p licit 3 and det ai l ed i n s et t i ng for t h s om e of the r eas oni ng forherfi ndi ngs . N onethel es s , gi ven t he ci r cumst ance s of the Shengs ’ m arr i age, the l i m i t ed document aryevi dence , and the vi deot ape r ecor di ng of M s . Sheng’ s 1992 i nt ervi ew , M r . Sheng has nots how n t hatthe8

re c o rd c o m p e ls th e c o n c lu sio n th a t h is m a rria g e w a s b o n a f id e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill denyt he pet i t i on.