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 1-15-2010 

# B in C he n 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 . 08-4585

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 authori 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
" B in C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2050. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2050NOT 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- 4585

___________ BI N DI CH E N, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES 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 097- 949- 533) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l bert o R i efkohl Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary4, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary15, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM B i n C hen, a ci t i zen of

C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2004 w i thoutval i d t r avel document s . H e fi l ed a t i m el yappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . H e now pet i t i ons forr evi ewA tthe r emoval hear i ng, C hen expl ai ned thatal though hi s as y l um appl i cat i on 1 i n d i c a t e d th a tth e r e wa s o n l yo n e f r i e n d p r e s e n ta tth e t i me , th e r e we r e a c tu a l l ytwo fr i ends ther e. 2 of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s or deruphol di ng the deni al of r el i ef. I A thi s fi r s ti m m i gr at i on hear i ng i n February2005, C hen t es t i fi ed thathe bega n p ra c ticin g F a lu n G o n g in 2 0 0 1 , o n th e a d v ice o f h is g ra n d m o th e r. C h e n a ss e rte d th a t in M ay2002, pol i ce of

fi cer s bar ged i nt o hi s hom e, w her e he ha d been pr act i ci ng Fal un G o n g w ith h is gran d m o ther a n d o n e o r tw o frien d s. A lth o u g h C h en an d h is fri en d s w ere 1 abl e t o es cape the pol i ce, hi s gr andmot herw as arr es t ed and de t ai ned fort en day s . C hen c laim e d th a t h e w e n t in to h id in g f o llo w in g th e a rre st o f

h is g ra n d m o th e r a n d su b se q u e n tly f le d C h in a . C h e n ’s f

a th e r a n d g ra n d m o th e r r e m a in in C h in a . A l though C hen w as abl e t o i dent i fys om e of the bas i c pr i nci pl es of Fal un G ong a n d n a m e th e m e d itatio n e x e rc ise s th a t F a lu n G o n g a d h e re n ts p ra c tice , h is a b ili tyto el abor at e on otheras pect s of Fal un G ong w as l i m i t ed. C hen expl ai ned thatthi s r es ul t ed fr om hi s i l l i t er acy . C hen al s o s ubm i t t ed a l ett erfr om hi s father , w hi ch cont ai ned an acc ountof the eve nt s l eadi ng C hen t o pr act i ce Fal un G ong and of the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the pol i ce r ai d, the gr andmot her ’ s arr es t , and C hen’ s s ubs equentfl i ghtt o the U ni t ed St at es . N ot abl y , C hen’ s fatheradmi t t ed i n the l ett erthathe w as notpr es entw hen p o li ce raide d the h o m e a n d arrested C h en ’s gra n d m o ther. T he I J deni ed C hen’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef, not i ng thatC hen’ s t es t i m onydi d not3

demonstr at e anythi ng bey ond a gene r al under s t andi ng of Fal un G ong, and thatC hen pr ovi ded i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o corr obor at e the cl ai m s thathe pr act i ces Fal un G ong and thathe and hi s fami l yfac ed per s ecut i on i n C hi na. C hen appe al ed, and the B I A r emanded the mat t ers o t hatC hen coul d have the opportuni tyt o ei therpr es entcorr obor at i ve evi dence orexpl ai n hi s fai l ur e t o do s o. T h e IJ c o n d u c ted a n o th e r h e a rin g in M a y2 0 0 7 . C h e n tes tifie d th a t sin c e h is arr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es , he oft en pr act i ced Fal un G ong i n a park w i th a gr oup of about 20 peopl e. H e al s o s ubm i t t ed s om e phot ogr aphs of hi m s el f pr act i ci ng Fal un G ong exer ci s es i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n fr ontof otherpeopl e, w ho w er e pr es um abl yother pr act i t i oner s , and gene r al l i t er atur e aboutFal un G ong. H ow ever , the phot ogr aphs di d not iden ti fyan yo f th e o ther p eo p le de p ict ed as p rac ti ti o n ers o f F alun G o n g . A n d , as th e IJ not ed, C hen fa i l ed t o offe ranyt es t i m onyfr om other s corr obor at i ng hi s pr act i ce of Fal un G o n g , d e sp ite th e f

a c t th a t h e c laim e d to p ra c tice re g u lar lyw ith o th e r p e o p le. N o r d id C h e n p re se n t an yn e w e v id e n c e a t th e se c o n d h e a rin g to c o rro b o ra te th e c laim th a t h is g ra n d m o th e r h a d b e e n a rre ste d . T h e IJ a g a in d e n ied re lief , rea so n in g th a t C h e n f

a iled to pr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence t o corr obor at e hi s cl ai m s thathe pr act i ced Fal un G ong ort hat hi s gr andmot herw as arr es t ed. C hen appe al ed, and the B I A aff i r m ed, agr eei ng w i th the IJ ’s c o rr o b o ra tio n a n a lysis . II W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r C h e n ’s p e titio n p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ).W e not e thatthe I J ’ s February2005 opi ni on om i t t ed anydi s cus s i on of the l ett er 2 su b m itt e d b yC h e n ’s f

a th e r, an d sim p lyc o n c lu d e d th a t C h e n “ m a d e re f e re n c e to h is gr andmot her ’ s arr es tand herr el eas e t en day s l at er , butfai l ed t o documentthat 4 B e c a u s e th e B IA is s u e d its o w n o p in io n , w e re v ie w its d e c is io n ra th e r t h a n th a t o f th e IJ . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e r evi ew the dec i s i on of the I J t o t he ext entthatthe B I A defe r s t o oradopt s the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew agenc yfac tual det erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and w i l l uphol d s uch det erm i nat i ons “unl es s the evi dence not onl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zhang v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 150, 1 5 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). C h e n a rg u e s th a t th e A g e n c ye rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t h e f

a iled to a d e q u a telyc o rro b o ra te h is c laim , an d c o n ten d s th a t h e is e n title d to a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, a n d C A T re lie f. W e d is a g re e . E v e n w h e n a n a p p lica n t is c o n sid e re d o th e rw ise c re d ib le, a f a ilu re to c o rro b o ra te m a yb e re lied o n to d e n yre lief w h e n “ (1 ) th e IJ id e n tifie s f a c ts f o r w h ich it i s re a so n a b le t o expec tthe appl i cantt o pr oduce c orr obor at i on, ( 2) the appl i cantfai l s t o corr obor at e, and ( 3) the appl i cantfai l s t o adequa t el yexpl ai n thatfai l ur e. ” C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F. 3d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 -92 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ing A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 (3d C ir . 2001) ) . “I ti s r eas onabl e t o expec tcorr obor at i on w her e the fa ct s ar e ce ntr al t o the a p p lic a n t’ s c la im a n d e a s ily su b je c t to v e ri f

ic a tio n .” Id . a t 1 9 2 . H er e, the I J i ni t i al l yfaul t ed C hen forfai l i ng t o demonstr at e thathe pr act i ced Fal un G o n g an d fo r fa il ing to p rese n t suf ficien t evid en ce o f h is gran d m o ther’s a rrest. T h e B IA 2in f

o rm a tio n in o rd e r to m a k e it cre d ib le.” A .R . 1 1 3 . H o w e v e r, th e IJ e x p re ss ly con si dered t he lett er on rem and , no t i ng that i t s corr ob orat i ve v al ue w as w eak b ecause C hen’ s fatherdi d notw i tnes s the pol i ce r ai d. See A . R . 41. T he G overnm entar gues thatbeca us e C hen pr ovi ded no s ubs t ant i ve ar gum entt o the 3 B I A r egar di ng hi s C A T cl ai m , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overhi s chal l enge t o the B I A ’ s deni al of C A T r el i ef. W e di s agr ee. A pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhaus t ed al l admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i f he r ai s es al l i s s ues befor e the B I A . See Li n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 120- 2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). “I n d e e d , ‘so lo n g a s a n im m ig ra tio n p e tit io n e r m a k e s s o m e e f f o rt, how everi ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace the B oar d on not i ce of a s tr ai ght forw ar d i s s ue bei ng r ai s ed on appea l , a pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhaus t ed heradmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng J os eph v. A t t ’ yG en. , 465 F. 3d 123, 126 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . H er e, C hen cha l l enged 5 re m a n d e d th e c a se a n d a f f o rd e d h im th e o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t ad d iti o n a l ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is c laim s. D e sp ite h a v in g n e a rlya y e a r b e tw e e n th e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n a n d h is se c o n d h e a rin g b e f

o re th e IJ, C h e n p ro d u c e d o n lym in im a l ev id e n c e to c o rro b o ra te h is claim s. S p ec ifi ca ll y , C h en fa il ed to p rod u ce an yev iden ce – b ey o n d h is fathe r’s l ett er – thathi s gr andmot herw as everarr es t ed. A nd al though C hen s ubm i t t ed s om e phot ogr aphs s how i ng hi m publ i cl ypr act i ci ng w hatappea r ed t o be Fal un G ong exer ci s es , C hen off er ed
n o tes tim o n yf

ro m h is p u rp o rte d f

e llo w p ra c tit io n e rs to d e m o n stra te th a t h e a c tu a lly cont i nued t o pr act i ce. N ordi d he pr es entevi dence corr obor at i ng hi s cl ai m thathe pr act i ced Fal un G ong w hi l e i n C hi na. I tw as r eas onabl e forthe A gencyt o r equi r e C hen t o adequa t el ycorr obor at e hi s cl ai m s , and w e agr ee thatC hen’ s fai l ur e t o do s o w as unr eas onabl e. B ecause C hen ’s fai l ure t o co rr ob orat e rendered him i neli gibl e for asy l um , w e al so agr ee thathe w as unabl e t o m eetthe hi ghers t andar ds appl i cabl e t o appl i cat i ons for
w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T pr ot ect i on. See Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 3th e IJ’ s C A T d e ter m in a tio n in b o th h is n o tice o f a p p e a l an d b rie f

to th e B IA , alb e it w ith no addi t i onal ar gum ent . W e ther efor e conc l ude thathe s at i s fi ed the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct ’ s exhaus t i on r equi r ement . E ven i f C hen’ s fi l i ngs w er e i ns uffi ci entt o do so, the clai m i s exhau st ed b ecause the B IA exp res sl ycon si dered t he m eri t s of his request forC A T r el i ef. See i d. at123- 24. F. 3d 225, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( w i thhol di ng of r emoval ) ; K amar a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 420 F. 3d 2 0 2 , 2 1 2 -13 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (C A T reli ef ). A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .