2009 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 12-29-2009 

# M ei Re n v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4734

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ei Re n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 32. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/32NOT 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- 4734

___________ M E I XI NG R E N, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 095- 966- 149) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

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

N ovember27, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber29, 2009)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM M ei X i ng R en pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyherpet i t i on.2 I. R en, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2005 w i t houtbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed. T he G overnm entl at erchar ged heras r emovabl e on thatbas i s . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a)(6)(A )(i ). R en co n ce d es re m o v ab il ity , b u t seek s asy lum , statu tory w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al , and w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T o rtu re (“C A T ”) o n the g rou n d s tha t she su ff ere d p ast p erse cu ti o n an d fa ce s fu ture m i s t r eatm enton acc ountof heri m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. A c c o rd in g to R e n , w h o se tes tim o n yth e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) f o u n d c re d ib le in al l r es pect s , a pr i vat e deve l opm entcompanys ei zed l and w i t houtcompensa t i on i n her fami l y ’ s vi l l age, i ncl udi ng l and ow ned byherfami l yt hati tus ed fori t s s ubs i s t ence as w el l as l and ow ned byot hervi l l ager s . T he C hi nes e governm ent“s i ded” w i t h t he d ev elop er a n d w arn ed the to w n sp eo p le no t t o interfe re w ith the d ev elop m en t. R en ’s father , al ong w i t h ot hervi l l ager s , s enta l et t erof pr ot es tt o t hei rV i l l age Com m i t t ee on J ul y7, 2002. H erfather , agai n al ong w i t h ot hervi l l ager s , al s o par t i ci pat ed i n a demonst r at i on agai ns tt he deve l opm enti n D ece m ber2002. R en t es t i fi ed thats he w as not i nv olved i n an yof these act i vit i es. S oo n ther eaft er, her fat her l earned thatC hinese a u th o rities h a d b e g u n a rre stin g th o se w h o to o k p a rt in th e p ro tes t, an d h e w e n t in to hi di ng. C hi nes e author i t i es ul t i m at el yl ocat ed and a r r es t ed R en’ s fatheron M ar ch 20, 2005. O n t hatday , and on the advi ce of “other s , ” R en w entt o t he pr i s on w her e herfather3

w as b eing h eld w ith m o n eyan d g ift s fo r a p ri so n o ff ici al i n an ef

fo rtto se cu re h er f

athe r’s r el eas e. T he pr i s on offi ci al , i n w hatR en r efe r s t o as “s exual har as s m ent , ” cl os ed the door behi nd her , pus hed heragai ns ta t abl e, and tr i ed t o r emove hercl ot hes . R en t es t i fi ed that sh e g ra b b e d a n a sh tra yf ro m th e tab le a n d h it th e o f f icia l in th e f

a c e , w h ich c a u se d h im to s cr eam and begi n bl eedi ng, t hen fl ed. W hen s he r etur ned home, s he t ol d herm ot herw hat had happe ned and he rm ot herur ged hert o s eek a s y l um i n t he U ni t ed St at es . R en c o n ta c te d a s m u g g le r a n d le f t C h in a s ix d a y s la te r. R en’s father w as l at er tri ed b efore a j uryand con vict ed o f vari ou s cr i m es agai nst t he deve l opm entcompany( i ncl udi ng char ges of br eaki ng and ent er i ng, des t r oy i ng eq u ipm en t, an d b lock ing co n stru cti o n ), ch arg es th at R en insist s w ere fa b ri ca ted. R en ’s fatherw as s ent ence d t o t en mont hs of i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch he s erved, and has s i nce be en r el eas ed. R en al s o t es t i fi ed thatC hi nes e author i t i es cont i nue s ear chi ng forherather hous e, cl ai m i ng t hatt heyw antt o s ee he rbeca us e s he att empt ed t o br i be and a t t acke d a publ i c off

i ci al . R en cl ai m s t hatt hes e eve nt s s how t hatt he C hi nes e governm enthas i m put ed t o herherfather ’ s pol i t i cal opi ni on, w hi ch s he cha r act er i zes as oppos i t i on t o t he governm ent ’ s r ol e i n t he s ei zur e of thei rl and. T he I J deni ed r el i ef. T he I J expl ai ned thatnei t hert he att empt ed s exual as s aul tnor anydepr i vat i on R en s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof herfami l y ’ s l os s of l and r os e t o t he l evel of pastpersecut i on . T he IJ further con cl ud ed thatt here w as no ev i den ce t hat the C hinese governm enti m put ed anypar t i cul arpol i t i cal opi ni on t o her , and thats he thus di d notfac eW e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . “B eca us e the B I A adopt ed 1 s om e of the fi ndi ngs of the I J and made addi t i onal fi ndi ngs , w e w i l l r evi ew t he dec i s i ons o f b o th the B IA an d IJ. ” G o m ez -Z u luag a v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 2 7 F . 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). “W e d e f

e r to th e B IA ’s f

in d in g s if

th e ya re su p p o rte d b yre a so n a b le, s u b sta n tial, an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd c o n side red as a w h o le. ” S ioe Tjen W o n g v . A tt ’y G e n ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). “ U n d e r th e d e f

e re n tial su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd , the B IA ’s f in d in g s ‘m u st b e u p h e ld unl es s t he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ’ ” I d. (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). W e h a v e p len a ryre v iew o v e r its c o n c lu sio n s o f law , su b jec t to e s ta b lis h e d p ri n c ip le s o f d e f e re n c e o n a g e n c yre v ie w . S e e id . a t 2 3 1 .

4 per s ecut i on on acc ountof a s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ound. Fi nal l y , t he I J concl uded that R en h ad p rese n ted n o ev iden ce that sh e w o u ld b e torture d if return ed to C h ina. T h e B IA esse n ti all yag ree d w ith an d su p p lem en ted th ese co n clus ion s. In p arti cu lar, the B IA concl uded that , even i f the att empt ed s exual as s aul thad r i s en t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on, t her e w as no evi dence t hati tw as on acc ountof R en’ s i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. T he B I A al s o concl uded thatherfatherhad bee n pr os ecut ed forhavi ng comm i t t ed cr i m es , not p e r s e c u t e d f

o rh i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . Re n p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. 1 II. O n r evi ew , R en pr i m ar i l ychal l enges t he I J ’ s and B I A ’ s det erm i nat i ons t hatnei t her t he att empt ed s exual as s aul tnoranypuni s hm ents he mi ghtfac e i n t he futur e w oul d be on acc ountof anys t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound— i n t hi s cas e, on acc ountof anypol i t i cal o p in io n th a t th e C h in e s e g o v e rn m e n t im p u te s to h e r. S e e J ia n Z h a u Z h e n g v . A tt’ yG e n ., 549 F. 3d 260, 266 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ; 8 U . S. C . §§ 1101( a) ( 42) , 1158( b) & 1231( b) ( 3) . R en, how ever , ci t es no evi dence of r ecor d t hats he cont ends t he I J orB I A over l ooked, and5

ci t es no evi dence t hatcompel s a conc l us i on contr aryt o the one theyr eac hed. I ns t ead, s he arg u es th at t h e C h ines e g o v ern m en t has im p u ted a p o li ti ca l op inion to h er f rom the m ere fac tt hats he tr i ed t o hel p herfather“getoutof the governm ent ’ s per s ecut i on” and “fought ” w i t h t he pr i s on offi ci al . ( Pet r . ’ s B r . at15. ) She r el i es fort hatpr opos i t i on on C h a v a rr ia v . G o n z a le s , 4 4 6 F .3 d 5 0 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), b u t th a t c a s e is in a p p o s ite . In C hav arr i a, w e held t hat a pol i t i cal op i nion had been i m pu t ed to an o t herw i se apol i t i cal i ndi vi dual beca us e: ( 1) he ca m e t o t he ai d of w om en w hom m ember s of a par ami l i t arygr oup had att acke d and w ho tur ned outt o be mem ber s of a pol i t i cal or gani zat i on oppos ed t o t he governm ent , s ee i d. at513, 518; ( 2) t he s ame at t acke r s l at er su rv e ill e d h im a t h is h o m e , se e id . at 5 1 8 -1 9 ; an d (3 ) h e w a s a ttac k e d a n d th re a ten e d w ith death, w i t h t he comm ent“[w ] e ar e goi ng t o l eave y ou al one t oday , buti f w e eve rcat ch y ou agai n y ou w on’ tl i ve t o t al k abouti t , ” i d. at519. T hus , t her e w as no i ndi cat i on t hat t he pet i t i oneri n C havarr i a w as s ur vei l l ed and a t t acke d foranyr eas on ot hert han the assi st ance h e rendered t o p eop l e w ho turned o ut t o b e po l i t i cal dis si den t s. I n t hi s cas e, bycontr as t , t her e i s no evi dence t hatR en w as as s aul t ed ort hat author i t i es ar e s eeki ng herbeca us e the C hi nes e governm enti m put es herfather ’ s pol i t i cal op i nion t o h er. R en tes t i fi ed that , un l i ke h er father, she nev er t oo k p arti n the vi l l agers’ pr ot es tagai ns tt he deve l oper ’ s act i ons . ( A . 144- 45. ) She di d nott es t i fyt hats he expr es s ed anypol i t i cal opi ni on dur i ng hervi s i tt o t he pol i ce s t at i on ort o anyt hi ng el s e s ugges t i ng t hatt he att empt ed as s aul tw as pol i t i cal l ym ot i vat ed. ( A . 145- 46. ) T o t he contr ary , s he6

t es t i fi ed that , w hen the pr i s on offi ci al cl os ed the doorbehi nd her , s he as ked hi m w hathe w as doi ng and “he s ai d a man and a w om an i ns i de a r oom . W hat , w hatdo y ou t hi nk. ” (A .1 4 6 .) M o re o v e r, sh e tes tifie d th a t, w h e n a u th o rities so u g h t h e r a t h e r h o m e , the yto ld herm ot hert hattheydi d s o “bec aus e I had i nt ent i on t o br i be off i ci al , and, al s o, at t ack o ff ici al. ” (A . 1 4 7 . ) T h is t esti m o n yco n sti tutes su b stan ti al ev iden ce in su p p o rto f th e IJ’s and B I A ’ s concl us i ons t hatR en nei t hers uffe r ed norfac es m i s t r eatm enton acc ountof any p o li ti ca l op inion the C h ines e g o v ern m en t i m p u tes t o h er, an d o u r rev iew o f th e re co rd confi r m s t hatR en pr es ent ed no evi dence t hatcompel s a contr aryconcl us i on. For t hat rea so n , w e m ayn o t distu rb th e d en ial o f h er a p p li ca ti o n s fo r asy lum o r st atuto ry w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. F in a lly , R e n c h a llen g e s th e IJ’ s a n d B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t sh e f a iled to sh o w it m or e l i kel yt han nott hats he w oul d be t or tur ed on r etur n t o C hi na. See G om ez- Z ul uaga, 52 7 F . 3d at34 9. O nce ag ai n, ho w ever, R en cit es no ev i den ce of recor d thatcom pels a c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n , a n d o u r r e v ie w o f th e re c o rd c o n f

ir m s th a t th e re is n o n e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yh e rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.