FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 26, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1080 4 Non-Argum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI AN o. A 77- 309- 183 JI E WANG, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Resp on de nt .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Petition for Reviewof an O rder of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 26, 200 5) Before ED MON DS ON, Ch ief Judge, BLA CK and P RY OR, Cir cuit Jud ges . PE R CU RIA M:
Jie W ang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for reviewof the final or de r of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s ( BI A ), w hic h a ff irm ed the im m igr at ionThe 1999 State Depa rtment Country Report ref lected that the Chinese g overnme nt launched a 1 cra ckdown in 1999 on the Fa lun Gongspiritual movement; thousands of Fa lun Gongprac titioners wer e re ported de tained and some number a re be lieved to have been tor tured or killed. 2 j udge’s denial of a sy lum , denial of w ithho lding of rem oval, and denial of relief under the United Nations Conventio n Against Torture (CA T) . Rem oval pr oc ee din gs c om

m en ce d a ft er

1 Apr il 1997 ; the pe rm an en t pr ovi sio ns o f the Im m igration and NationalityAc t, a s am ended by the Illegal Im

m igration Reform an d I m m igr an t R es pons ibi lity

A ct of 199 6, P ub. L . N o. 104 -2 08, 110 S tat. 300 9 (1 996) , gov er

n th is p et iti on. W e de ny

the pe tit ion . Inhe r as y lum

appl ic at ionand at he r he ar ing , W an g st at ed that, in 1997 , when she w as 15 y ears old and living in China, she becam e an em ploy ee of a book sto re in a town inF uj ian pr ovi nc e. W an g le ar ne d th at the boo kst or e sol d
m at er ia ls a

bout the F al un G ong spi ri tua l m ove m en t. I n Ju ly 199 9, the Ch ine se governm ent forbid the sale of Falun G ong li terature. But W ang’ s boss continu ed 1 to sell Falun Gong m aterials beca use he wanted to m ake a profit. W ang contin ued to s el l F al un G ong book s, de spi te kno w ing about the ir pr ohi bit ion , be ca

use she fe lt “ okay ” ab out

se lli ng the m

and b ec au se he r boss w oul d have f ir ed he r if she would have refused. In Augus t 1999 , W ang heard from the m other of a cow orker that po lic e dis co ve re d th at the boo kst or e sti ll w as se lli ng F al un G ong m at er ia ls: th e p ol ic e arr es te d Wang ’s bo ss an d c owo rk er an d s ei zedth e Fal un Gon g b oo ks .3

W ang went into hidi ng on the advice of her m other. W ang’ s m other told her that the police cam e lookin g for W ang; and, when her m other told th em

that W ang had qu i tth e s t o r e , th e p o l i c e d i dn o tb e l i e v e h e r an db e g ant o b r e akh o u s e h o l di t e ms w ithasti ck . W an g le ft

Ch ina in N ove m

be r 1999 and e ve ntu al ly

arr ive d inthe U nit ed S tate s. W an g a dm itt ed

that sh e did

not pr ac tic e Fa lunG ong w hil e in C hin a. B ut w hil e de ta ine d inL os Ange le s, W an g be cam e curi ous ab out F al un G ong. S he be gan to r ea d F al un G ong book s bo rr ow ed f ro m af ri en d, and s he pr ac tic ed

F al un G ong w iththi s f

ri en d f or se ve ra l m onths. W an g late r m ove d to K ey W es t, Fl or ida , w he re she obt ai ne d tw o F al un G ong book s f ro m he r co usi n. B ut s he did not practice Fa lun Gong in Ke y W est because she has not been able to locate Fa lunG ong fo llo w er s inthat c ity . W an g st at ed that, aw ee k be fo re the he ar ing , h e r mo th e r t o l dh e r th a tth e p o l i c e s t i l l w e r e l o o k i n g f o r h e r , a l th o u g hth e l a s tt i me they cam e to her house was in O ctober 1999. Ac cording to Wang, the police knew that sh e w as in the U nit ed S tate s. A t the he ar ing , tw o c ousi ns t es tif ie d onW an g’ s be ha lf

. B othc ousi ns ve ri fi ed he r ide nti ty ; on e co usi n st at ed that he ha d he ar d f

ro m W an g’ s m oth er

and his f athe r that the gov er

nm en t w as loo kin g f

or he r be ca use she w as se lli ng F al un4

G ong book s il le ga lly . B ut the c ousi n th at a lle ge dly pr ovi de d W an g w iththe F al un G o n g b o o k s i nth e Un i t e dS t a t e s d i dn o tt e s t i f y. T he I J de te rmine d th at

W an g ha d f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on t o qu al if

y f or a sy lum . T he I J wro te that W an g di d no t pr ac tic e Fa lun Gong in China and has no t practiced F alun Gong in th e United States since D ec em be r 2000 . A nd the I J no te d th at , de spi te gr an tin g ac ont inu an ce to W an g to gathe r co rr obor at ive e vid en ce , W an g di d no t pr oduc e the te sti m ony of the c ousi n who allegedly

sent her the Falun G ong b ooks . The I J also wrote that W ang was not th e proprietor of the book sto re in China, but “ a m ere salaried em ploy ee, ” that the r ea son she sol d th e Fa lunG ong book s w as to ke ep he r j ob, and that W an g fa ile d to pr oduc e ana ff

idavit or de cl ar at ionf

ro m he r m oth er

about the e ve nts in Ch ina . T he I J f

urthe r not ed

that W an g su

bm itt ed no o ff ic ia l do cum en ts i ndi catin g that sh e is w an te d f

or the a lle ge d sa le of

F al un G ong m at er ia ls. W an g arg ue s th at

she e sta bli she d aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on (1 ) be ca use the Ch ine se gov er

nm en t pe rc ei ve d he r to b e a pr ac tit ion er of F al un Gong, and (2) she has begun to practice F alun Gong since arriving in th e United St at es . T he BI Aa ff

irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out opi nio n: the I J’ s de ci sio n becam e the final re m oval order subjec t to review. See Mendoza v. U .S . A ttorney5

G en . , 327 F . 3d 1 283, 128 4 n. 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . W e re vie wthe I J’ s f ind ing s of fa ct und er the “ subs tanti al e vid en ce ” te st: w e m ust a ff irm the I J’ s de ci sio n “ if

it is supp orted by

rea sonable, substan tial, and probativ e evidence on the rec ord considered as a whole.” A l Na jj ar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F. 3d 12 62, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2001 ) (c itatio n om itt ed ). “ T o r ev er se the I J’ s f ac t f ind ing s, w e m

ust f ind that the re co rd not onl y sup ports r ev er sa l, but

c om pe ls i t. ” Me ndoz a, 327 F . 3d at 12 87. A n a lie n m ay

obt ai n a sy lum

if she is a “ re fu ge e” : a

pe rs on unw ill ing to return to her country

of nationality“because of perse cution o r a w ell-founded fear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of , ” am ong oth er

thi ngs, he r ac tua l or

im put ed r el igi ous an d p ol it ic al be li efs . 8 U.S.C. § § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) (A), 11 58 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 ); s ee Al N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 87- 89. T he a sy lum appl ic an t be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng statut or y “ re fu ge e” status w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le e vid en ce . A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 128 4, 128 7. W e upholdthe BIA ’ s affir m ance of the I J’ s decision. First, the evidence doe s no t c om

pe l a c onc lus ionthat W an g ha s aw el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on ba se d onhe r ac tua l r el igi ous or pol iti ca l be lie fs . W an g di d no t pr ac tic e Fa lun G ong in C hin a an d on ly

br ie fl y pr ac tic ed it f or se ve ra l m onths i n 20 00. A nd s he did not pr oduc e the te sti m ony

of the c ousi n who a lle ge dly gave he r the F al un Gong book s after

W ang arrived in the United State s, even a fter the I J granted her aWe r e

je c t Wang ’s c la ims tha

t sh e qu a lif

ie d for wi thh old ing of re mov a l and CA T re lie f. Th e se 2 claims involve more stringent standards t han the standard for showing entit lement t o asylum relief: Wang ha s not shown that she has met these highe r st andar ds. See Al Na jjar, 257 F .3d at 1292-93, 1303-04. 6 co nti nuanc e. S ee I n r e S- M- J- , 21 I &ND ec . 722 ( BI A199 7) ( w he n “ re as ona ble to e xpe ct c or ro bor at ing e vid en ce f

or c er ta in a lle ge d f

ac ts p er ta ini ng t o th e specifics of an applicant’ s claim , such evidence should be prov ided”). A nd the e vid en ce doe s no t c om pe l a c onc lus ionthat W an g ha s aw el lfo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n h er i m pu te d re li gi ou s o r po li ti cal be li efs . W an g a dm itt ed

that sh e did

not pr ac tic e Fa lunG ong w hil e in C hin a an d th at she sol d F al un G ong book s a ft er the y w er e banne d on ly

be ca use she did

not w ishto los e he r j ob. H er

c ousi n’ s te sti m ony

sho w s th at

the gov er

nm en t w as loo kin g f

or he r be ca use she w as se lli ng F al un G ong book s il le ga lly a t the boo kst or e. T he ev ide nc e show s th at

W an g w as sou ght

by the pol ic e fo r se lli ng b anne d F al un Gong m aterials. But the evidence does not com pel the conclusio n that the pol ice pur sue d W an g be ca

use the y tho ught she w as aF al un G ong pr ac tit ion er : the ev ide nc e thu s do es not

c om pe l a c onc lus ionthat the pol ic e pur sue d he r be ca use of he r re lig iou s or

pol iti ca l be lie fs . Insum , w e se e no r ea son to d ist ur b th e IJ ’ s and B IA ’ s de nia l of a sy lum re lie f to W an g. 27

PETI TI ON DENI ED.