FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13734 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 453- 834 G U I H U A N G Z H O U , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

G ui H uang Z ho u p et i t i on s thi s C ou rt , pro se, for r evi ew of the B IA ’ s f i nal order w hi ch af

fi rm ed the IJ ’ s deni al of as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( I N A ) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1231, a nd the C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . Z hou c ont e nds tha tthe B I A e rr e d be c a us e i t s de c i s i on w a s e i the rnots uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e or w a s ba s e d on a m i s appl i c a t i on of the l a w . Z hou a s s e r t s tha tthe l a c k of corr ob orat i ng evi dence i s notan adequat e groun d for deni al because nei ther the IJ no r the B IA m ade afi nd i ng as t o w hether Z ho u cou l d h ave obt ai ned d ocum ent ary e vi de nc e unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s . Z hou a r gue s tha thi s s pe c i f i c , c ons i s t e nt , a nd det ai l ed t es t i m on y w as adequat e t o m ee thi s burden o f proof. H e a l so ar gu es that the B IA ’ s dec i si on m i ss t at ed the re cord by as se rt i ng thatZ ho u’ s f am i l y c on t i nu es t o pr a c t i c e the F a l un G ong r e l i gi on i n C hi naw i thouta ny pr obl e m s . F i na l l y , Z hou c l a i m s tha tthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng, w hi c h he c l a i m s w a s a dopt e d by the B I A , w a s n o t a d e q u a te ly s u p p o r te d . W e r e v ie w o n ly th e B I A ’s d e c is io n , “e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e x p r e s s ly adop t s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ” A l N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). “In so fa r a s th e [ B IA ] ad o p ts th e I J’s r ea so n in g , w e w il l rev iew th e I J’s de c i s i on a s w e l l . ” I d. H e r e , be c a us e the B I A e xpr e s s l y a dopt e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, a nd a dde d s om e c om m e nt s of i t s ow n, w e r e vi e w both.Fur ther, even if Zhou had not aba ndoned his past per secution claims, we would not be 1 compelled to reversethe IJ ’s conc lusion that he failed to prof fer evidenc e suff

icient to meet the pers e cuti on

sta ndard . I f a

ny thing , Zho u w a s o nly

indire c tly

thre atene d whil ein C hin a , which is not enough. See Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1231 (holding that threats to petitioner a nd her brother did not compel reversal of IJ ’s dec ision). 3 W e be gi n by c ons i de r i ng w ha tc l a i m s a r e pr ope r l y be f or e us . T he g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s th a t Z h o u h a s ab a n d o n e d s e v e r a l o f h is c la im s b y f

a ilin g to a de qua t e l y pur s ue the m be f or e the B I A ori n thi s appe a l . W e do notha ve j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew cl ai m s thathave no tbeen rai se d b ef ore the B IA . A m ay aA r tu n d u a g av . U n ite d S ta te s A tt’y G e n ., 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . N or do w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew cl ai m s i f the appel l antfa i l s t o rai se that a r gum e nton appe a l . S e pul ve dav. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1228 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . Z hou ha s aba ndone d a ny c l a i m of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on be c a us e he di d not s u f f ic ie n tly a d v a n c e s u c h a n a r g u m e n t in e ith e rh is ap p e a l to th e B I A o rin th is appe a l . S e e i d. Z hou’ s br i e f m a ke s s e ve r a l pa s s i ng r e f e r e nc e s t o pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, b u t h e n e v e rc la im s th a t th e I J o rth e B I A e rr e d in f in d in g n o p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . E ve n i f w e r e a d hi s pr o s e br i e f l i be r a l l y , s e e T a nne nba um v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 1262, 1263 ( 11th C i r . 1998) , w e s t i l l f i nd tha the aba ndone d thi s por t i on of h i s c l a i m. 14

A c c o r d in g ly , Z h o u ’s a s y lu m c la im h in g e s o n h is ab ility to s h o w a w e llf o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is F a lu n G o n g p r a c tic e s . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (a ), (b); A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 87 –8 8. H e m ustdem on stra t e a we l l - f o u n d e d f e a rth a ti s b o th s u b

j e c t i v e l y g e n u i n e a n d o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n ab l e . Al N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 9 . T h e s u b je c tiv e c o m p o n e n t c a n b e p r o v e n b y “c r e d ib le t e s t i m ony ” tha the “ ge nui ne l y f e a r s pe r s e c ut i on, ” w hi l e the obj e c t i ve c om pone nt

“ c a n be f ul f i l l e d e i the rby e s t abl i s hi ng pa s tpe r s e c ut i on ortha the . . . ha s a good r e a s o n to f

e a rf u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . B oth the I J a nd the B I A de t e rm i ne d tha tZ hou f a i l e d t o pr ove e i the rthe s ubj e c t i ve orobj e c t i ve c om pone ntof a w e l l - f ounde d f e a r . A c c or di ng t o both the B I A a nd the I J , Z hou’ s t e s t i m ony , w hi c h w a s nots uppor t e d by c orr obor a t i ng d o c u m e n ts , w a s in s u f

f ic ie n tly d e ta ile d r e g a r d in g h is p a r e n ts ’ a rr e s t, im p r is o n m e n t, an d al l eg ed t o rtu re. A d d i t i o n al l y, th ere w as n o ev i d en ce th atth e C h i n ese a uthor i t i e s w e r e ora r e a f t e rhi m . Z hou’ s a c t i ons pr i ort o l e a vi ng C hi na— s t a y i ng w i th a fe l l ow F al un G on g m em ber the ni gh thi s par ent s w er e a rr es t ed and then l ea vi ng hi s aun t ’ s hom e a nd re turni ng t o h i s par ent s s t ore t o l i ve and w ork aft er th e irr e le a s e f

r o m p r is o n — f

u r th e rd im in is h Z h o u ’s c la im s . F in a lly , b o th c o u r ts a gr e e d tha tthe f

a c ttha tZ hou’ s pa r e nt s c urr e nt l y l i ve i n C hi naa nd pr a c t i c e F a l unZho u c laimsthat this f indingis a

mis statement o f t

here c ord, but w edis agre e . In his 2 a pp lic atio n f

or a sylum and withh oldingof

remov al, Zho u spe c if

ic ally state d th at hi s “pa

rents stillprac tice F alun Gong , but only doing it at home with very fewand sele ctive people .” 5 G on g w i tho utprob l em s und erm i nes Z ho u’ s a ss ert ed w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on. 2 Ou rr e v i e w o f

th e I J ’ s f

a c tu a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n i s e x tr e m e l y d e f e r e n t i a l , a n d we

“ a f f i rm the [ I J ’ s ] de c i s i on i f i ti s s uppor t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd prob at i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” F orgu e v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d a nd a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . I n or de r“ [ t ] o r e ve r s e the I J ’ s de c i s i on, w e m us tc onc l ude tha tthe r e c or d notonl y s uppor t s s uc h a c onc l us i on, butc om pe l s i t . ” Y a ng v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 418 F . 3d 1198, 1202 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed and al t er at i on i n o ri gi nal ). Z hou a r gue s tha tthe I J a nd the B I A e rr e d i n f i ndi ng hi s t e s t i m ony i ns uf f i c i e nta nd i n i m pl i c i t l y r e qui r i ng c orr obor a t i ng doc um e nt a t i on w i thout f in d in g th a t s u c h d o c u m e n ts c o u ld b e r e a s o n ab ly o b ta in e d b y Z h o u . I n c e r ta in c a s e s unc orr obor a t e d t e s t i m ony i s s uf f i c i e nt . I d. a t1201 ( “ U nc orr obor a t e d but c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the bur de n of pr oof f or d em o n strat i n g el i g i b i l i ty fo r asyl u m . T h e w eak er an ap p l i can t ’ s t est i m o n y, h o w e v e r , th e g r e a te rth e n e e d f o rc o rr o b o r a tiv e e v id e n c e .” ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ) . H e r e , Z hou’ s unc orr obor a t e d t e s t i m ony w a s w e a k a nd s uppor t i ng doc um e nt a t i on6

w o u ldh av e b ee n h elp fu l. N ev er th eles s, ev en if w e w er e to ac ce p t Z h o u ’s t est i m o n y as tru e, i tw as i n su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh a w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f p ast p e r s e c u tio n . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tZ hou di d notqua l i f y f or a s y lu m b e c a u s e h e f

a ile d to s h o w a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . H is p a r e n ts c o n tin u e to liv e a n d w o rk in C h in aw h ile p r a c tic in g F a lu n G o n g . T h e r e is nothi ng t o s ugge s ttha tthe C hi ne s e a uthor i t i e s a r e a f t e rZ hou ortha the i s i n a ny da nge r . Z hou’ s de c i s i on t o s t a y w i th af e l l ow F a l un G ong pr a c t i t i one ron the ni ght of hi s par ent s’ arre stw as i ncon si st entw i th h i s a ss ert ed fe ar . G i ven thatsubst ant i al e vi de nc e s uppor t s the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tZ hou c oul d notm e e tthe l e s s e ra s y l um bur de n, the B I A pr ope r l y de ni e d Z hou’ s pe t i t i on f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l a nd C AT r e l i e f

a s we l l . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. DE NI E D.