I M G - 200 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- 1951

___________ XI NG C HE N, Pet i t i oner

v . 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 99 673 054) 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)

M ay12, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F ISH E R and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay13, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM2

X i ng C hen pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) d e c isio n d ism iss in g h is a p p e a l o f a n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e c isio n d e n y in g h is a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o rr e l i e f f r o m r e mo v a l . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. C hen i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. H e arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y2006, w hen he w as ni net een y ear s ol d. Shor t l yther eaf t er , a not i ce t o appea rw as i s s ued cha r gi ng thatC hen w as s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e he w as pr es ent i n the U ni t ed St at es w i thouthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed. T hr ough couns el , C hen conce ded thathe i s r emovabl e as char ged. H e appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of rem o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). C hen t es t i fi ed thathe l eftC hi na bec aus e the pol i ce de t ai ned and t or tur ed hi m on A pr i l 16, 2006. C hen expl ai ned thaton thatdat e he a t t ended a pr i vat e gather i ng of C h ri sti an s at th e h o m e o f S ist er L u fo r th e E aster h o li d ay . H e stated that there w ere m o re than tw el ve peopl e ther e and thattheyr ead the bi bl e and s ang. T he pol i ce knoc ked att he doorand more than tw el ve off i cer s came i ns i de. T he pol i ce s t at ed thats om eone ha d re p o rte d th a t th e yw e re g a th e rin g th e re ill e g a llyf o r C h ristia n a c tiv iti e s. T h e p o lice to ld every on e t o st and asi de, sear ched the h om e, and t oo k aw aythe b i bles . C h e n s ta te d th a t th e p o lic e to o k e v e ryo n e to th e p o lic e s ta tio n f o r i n te rr o g a tio n . T hr ee of fi cer s t ook C hen t o a s m al l r oom and as ked hi m t o w r i t e dow n hi s per s onal in f o rm a tio n a n d th e n a m e o f th e lea d e r o f

th e a c tiv iti e s. C h e n to ld th e p o lice th a t th e yd id notdo anythi ng w r ong and thattheyvol unt ar i l yt ook parti n the ac t i vi t i es . C hen t es t i fi ed3

th a t an o f

f ice r th e n p u n c h e d h im in th e sto m a c h a n d a n o th e r o f f ice r h it h is s h o u ld e r w ith a sti ck . T h e p o li ce k icke d h im an d co n ti n u ed to as k h im to ide n ti fythe lea d er. C hen t es t i fi ed thathe w as det ai ned fortw o day s and that , i n or dert o be r el eas ed, he s i gned a l ett ers t at i ng thathe w oul d notpart i ci pat e i n the gather i ngs anym or e or c o n ta c t r e lig io u s o rg a n iz a tio n s . C h e n w a s re q u ir e d to re p o rt to th e p o lic e e a c h m o n th . T he pol i ce c al l ed C hen’ s s chool and the s chool di d notal l ow hi m t o r eturn. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, C hen t es t i fi ed thathe had ga ther ed w i th the s ame t w el ve p e o p le e v e ryS u n d a yf

ro m S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 5 u n til A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , b u t h e d id n o t k n o w th e ir names be caus e theyr efe r r ed t o eac h otheras br otherand s i s t er . C hen al s o s t at ed thathe w a s b ru ise d a f

ter th e p o lice d e tain e d h im b u t d id n o t se e k m e d ica l trea tm e n t. T h e IJ d id n o t fi n d C h en ’s t esti m o n yp ersu asiv e. T h e IJ e x p lai n ed that C h en ’s demeanors ugges t ed thathe di d nothave f i r m convi ct i ons and thathi s ans w er s w er e oft en s h o r to rn o n - r e s p o n s i v e . Th e I J a l s o n o t e d th a tCh e n h a d s u b mi t t e d a f o r m l e t t e rf

r o m a chur ch i n N ew Y or k confi r m i ng hi s att endanc e, butthatno one had w r i t t en a pe r s onal l et t er on his beh al f. B ased on the v agu e and i m preci se t est i m on y , the IJ m ade an adv ers e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. T he I J al s o r el i ed on contr adi ct i ons betw een Chen’ s t es t i m onyand w r i t t en s t at ement , not i ng thathe t es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow the names of the peopl e at the rel i gious gat heri ng s but he w rot e t hat he had been i ntr od uced t o ev ery on e. T he IJ al so not ed a mi nori ncons i s t ency , i n t hatC hen t es t i fi ed thatther e w er e more than a doz en4

p eo p le at S ist er L u ’s ho u se o n A p ri l 16 , 2 0 0 6 , b u t he w rote in h is st atem en t th at th ere w e re “ 1 0 s o m e th in g p e o p le .” The I J fu r the rs t a t e d tha tChen ’ s c r e di bi l i tyw a s un de r mi ne d b ythe 20 07 U . S. D epart m entof St at e Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and C ountryC ondi t i ons , w hi ch pr ovi des thatl ocal author i t i es qui et l yt ol er at ed hous e chur ches and pr ay erm eet i ngs as l ong as t hey re m a in e d sm a ll an d u n o b tru siv e . T h e IJ n o ted th a t th e situ a tio n d e sc rib e d b yC h e n d id n o t a p p e a r t o b e o n e th a t a u th o ri tie s w o u ld h a v e re s p o n d e d to in th e w a yth a t h e te s tif ie d . A s a re su lt o f

th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t C h e n h a d n o t m e t h is b u rd e n o f

p ro o f o n a n yo f

h is a p p lica tio n s f

o r re lief f ro m re m o v a l. T he B I A found no cl earerr ori n the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng and di s m i s s ed C hen’ s appea l . L i ke the I J , the B I A not ed thatC hen t es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow the n a m e s o f th e o th e r p e o p le a tten d in g th e w e e k lym e e tin g s a t S iste r L u ’s h o m e , b u t h is w r i t t en s t at ementpr ovi ded thathe w as i ntr oduced t o every one ther e. T he B I A fur ther not ed thatw hen C hen w as as ked w hyhe w as notfi ned w hen s om e of the otherchur ch att endee s w er e fi ned, C hen s eemed unaw ar e thathe had w r i t t en i n hi s s t at ementthatot her att endee s w er e fi ned. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. W e r evi ew the age ncy ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , i ncl udi ng adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs , for su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . C h e n v . A tt’yG e n ., 4 3 4 F .3 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). U n d e r th is s t andar d of r evi ew , w e w i l l uphol d the age ncy ’ s fi ndi ngs unl es s a r eas onabl e adj udi cat or w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . Id. C h en ’s ap p li ca ti o n s fo r reli ef are5

governed bythe R eal I D A ct , underw hi ch a c r edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on m aybe bas ed on an al i en’ s demeanorand r es pons i venes s , the pl aus i bi l i tyof the al i en’ s acc ount , and inco n sist en cies in th e e v iden ce , reg ard less o f w h ethe r th e inc o n sist en cies g o to the h ea rt o f th e a li en ’s claim . 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ). C hen ar gues thatthe B I A err ed i n uphol di ng the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w here he h ad tr ou ble unde rs t and i ng the G ov ernm ent’ s m i sl eading q uest i on s duri ng cross exami nat i on. C hen poi nt s t o ques t i ons bythe G overnm entr egar di ng hi s know l edge of r el i gi on, w hetherhe knew w her e he c oul d buya bi bl e, and w hetherhe had s een be for e the p e o p le p re se n t at S iste r L u ’s h o u se o n A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 . A s n o ted b yth e G o v e rn m e n t, couns el di d notobj ectt o t he natur e of the ques t i ons atthe hea r i ng. I n addi t i on, C hen tes tifie d th a t h e in iti a llyin c o rre c tlya n sw e re d th e q u e stio n w h e th e r h e h a d se e n th e p e o p le a t S iste r L u ’s b e f

o re b e c a u se h e w a s n e rv o u s, n o t b e c a u se h e w a s m isle d . T h e IJ a lso d id notr el yon C hen’ s know l edge of C hr i s t i ani tyi n fi ndi ng hi m notcr edi bl e. T o the contr ary , the I J s t at ed thatknow l edge of the t enet s of a r el i gi on i s notr equi r ed. C hen has no tshow n thatthe B IA err ed o n thi s basi s. C h e n a lso a rg u e s th a t th e IJ e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t h e lac k s s p iritua litya n d in s t at i ng thathe had no f

ervororpas s i on i n hi s t es t i m ony . C hen ar gues thathe w as not a sk e d h o w h is b e lief

s c h a n g e d h is s p iritua litya n d a ss e rts th a t th e IJ’ s re a so n in g in th is r egar d i s s pecul at i ve. I n concl udi ng thatC hen’ s pr es ent at i on w as notverycompel l i ng, th e IJ n o ted th a t h e d id n o t g e t th e im p re ss io n th a t C h e n h a d a n yp a rticu lar sp iritua lity6

reg ard ing h is r eli g ion an d that h e d id n o t detec t anyfe rvo r or p assio n in C h en ’s test im o n y . T h e IJ f

u rth er n o ted th at C h en ’s de m ea n o r did n o t sug g est th at he h ad firm convi ct i ons , thathe gaz ed dow nw ar d w hi l e t es t i fy i ng, and thathe gave s hor tand nonre sp o n siv e a n sw e rs to q u e stio n s. A h ig h d e g re e o f d e f e re n c e is g iv e n to a re a so n a b le adver s e i nfer ence dr aw n fr om an al i en’ s demeanor . D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 252 n. 23 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . E ven i f the I J m ayhave e rr ed i n concl udi ng thatC hen l acke d anys pi r i tual i ty , the I J di d noterri n r el y i ng on the mannerof C hen’ s pr es ent at i on t o s uppor tthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. Fi nal l y , C hen ar gues thatthe I J err ed i n fi ndi ng hi s w r i t t en s t at ementand t es t i m onyi ncons i s t entas t o w hetherhe knew the names of the peopl e w ho gather ed at Si s t erL u’ s hous e. C hen cont ends thathi s w r i t t en s t at ementonl ypr ovi des thathe w as in tr o d u c e d to th e p e o p le a t th e h o u s e , n o t th a t th e o th e rs in tr o d u c e d th e m s e lv e s b yn a m e . C hen al s o ar gues thatthe i ncons i s t encybetw een hi s s t at ementand t es t i m onyas t o the num berof per s ons pr es entw as m i nor . A s t o the l att erar gum ent , the I J acknow l edged thatthi s i ncons i s t encyw as m i norand s t at ed he di d “notw antt o m ake t oo m uch of i t . ” I J ’ s D ec. at10. W e al s o fi nd no err ori n the r el i ance on C hen’ s t es t i m onythathe di d not k n o w th e n a m e s o f

th e o th e r p e rso n s a t th e h o u se to su p p o rt th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng, w her e C hen s t at ed thathe w as i ntr oduced t o every one on Sept ember25, 2005,7

and thathe att ended w eekl ym eet i ngs w i th thes e i ndi vi dual s unt i l A pr i l 16, 2006. C hen has nots how n t hatthe evi dence compel s a contr aryconcl us i on. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.