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- 3458

___________ YOU C HUN Z HE NG,

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 099- 938- 777) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Sus an G . R oy

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

M ay26, 2010 B e f o re : M C K E E , C hi ef

Judge , H A R D IM A N a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 11, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Y ou C hun Z heng ( “Zheng”) , a ci t i zen of C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) o rde r dism issi n g h is ap p ea l from an Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng hi s r eques t s foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r2

the C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I Z heng ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2006 w i th a vi s i t or ’ s vi s a and s t ay ed bey ond the author i zed pe r i od. B efor e r ece i vi ng a not i ce t o appea r , Z heng fi l ed an appl i cat i on for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T pr ot ect i on. B efor e the I J , Z heng conc eded r emovabi l i ty , and s oughtr el i ef on the bas i s of an a s s aul the endur ed w hen he tr i ed t o s t op C hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng author i t i es fr om t aki ng hi s w i fe f ora for ced abort i on. Z heng t es t i fi ed thataft erhi s s on w as born i n 1991, hi s w i fe w as for ci bl yi m pl ant ed w i th an I U D . I n 1994, dur i ng a r out i ne che ckup, fami l ypl anni ng author i t i es di s cover ed thatthe devi ce ha d fai l ed and Zheng’ s w i fe w as pr egnant . T he author i t i es s ubj ect ed her t o a for ced abort i on and fi tt ed herw i th a new I U D . I n 1996, Z heng and hi s w i fe pa i d a p riv a te d o c to r to re m o v e th e IU D . H is w if e b e c a m e p re g n a n t so o n a f ter , an d th e c o u p le we n ti n t o h i d i n g wi th th e i rs o n a tth e h o me o f Z h e n g ’ s s i s t e r - i n - l a w. Z h e n g tes tifie d th a t a f

e w m o n th s a f

terh e a n d h is f

a m ilyw e n t in to h id in g , o f f icia ls m ade a n unannounce d vi s i tt o the s i s t er ’ s hom e t o chec k the hous ehol d r egi s t er . T hey r e a l i z e d th a tZ h e n g ’ s w i f e w a s p r e g n a n ti n v i o l a t i o n o f C h i n a ’ s f

a m i l y p l a n n i n g p o l i c y, a n d c a lled f

a m ilyp lan n in g o f

f icia ls to th e h o m e . S e v e ra l f a m ilyp lan n in g o f

f icia ls re s p o n d e d a n d in s is te d o n ta k in g Z h e n g ’s w if e to th e h o s p ita l to te rm in a te th e p re g n a n c y . Z heng pl eade d forthem t o s t op and, w hen theyw entforhi s w i fe, he def ended he r . Z heng3

stat ed in h is I -58 9 that the o ff ici als p u sh ed h im to the g rou n d , b u t t esti fied b ef o re the IJ thathe w as beat en bys ever al of the off i ci al s . H i s w i fe w as t aken a nd s ubj ect ed t o a s econd f or ced abort i on and I U D i m pl ant at i on. Z heng t es t i fi ed thathi s fami l ydi d notfac e anyfurtherpr obl ems w i th fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s aft erthe s econd f or ced abort i on. T he I J deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng Z heng i ncr edi bl e bas ed on s ever al om i s s i ons and in c o n sis ten c ies in h is te stim o n ya n d a sy lu m ap p lica tio n . T h e IJ f u rth e r re a so n e d th a t, e v e n if Z h e n g w e re c re d ib le , h e f a ile d to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f to q u a lif yf o r a s y lu m . T h e BI A a g r e e d a n d d i s mi s s e d Z h e n g ’ s ap p e a l . Z h e n g th e n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er the p eti ti o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a). B ec au se 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 th a n th a t o f th e IJ . See L i v. A tt ’y G en. , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, w e a lso loo kto the d ec isi o n o f th e IJ t o the ext entthatthe B I A defe rr ed t o oradopt ed the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See Chavarr i a v. G onz alez , 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 e w i l l uphol d a fa ctual det erm i nat i on “unl es s the evi dence notonl ys upport s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zhang v. G onz ales , 405 F. 3d 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). B e c a u se w e a g re e th a t Z h e n g d idn o t m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f , ev e n a ss u m in g h isE val uat i ng Z heng’ s ar gum ent s agai ns tthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on m ay 1 h av e p rov ed a c h all en g e. A m o n g o ther thin g s, Z h en g ’s co u n sel req u ested that this C o u rt “ u s e its e x p e rt is e in C h in e s e M a n d a ri n la n g u a g e to e v a lu a te ” o n e a s p e c t o f h is a rg u m e n t. Pet . B r . at10. 4 cr edi bi l i ty , w e nee d notaddr es s the pr opr i etyof the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. 1 T o d em on strat e el i gibi l i tyfor asy l um , an ap pli cant m ustdem on strat e that he suffered pa st per s ecut i on orthathe has a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. See Abdulr ahm an v. A sh c ro ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 591- 92 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he B oar d hel d thatZ heng di d not d e m o n stra te e ith e r re q u ire m e n t. Z heng ar gued thathe s uffe r ed per s ecut i on w hen C hi nes e off i ci al s beathi m for att empt i ng t o s t op them from t aki ng hi s w i fe f ora s econd f

or ced abort i on. A n i ndi vi dual w h o su f f e rs p e rse c u tio n f

o r re sis tan c e to a c o e rc iv e p o p u latio n c o n tro l p ro g ra m is e lig ib le f o r r e f u g e e s ta tu s . See Li n- Zheng v. A t t ’ y G en. , 557 F. 3d 147, 157 ( 3d C i r . 2009) (quoti ng 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42)) . H ow ever, for con du ctt o am ou nt t o p ers ecuti on , i tm ust b e e x tr e m e . Se e Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1243 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . Phy s i calabus e atthe hands of off

i ci al s w hi ch does notcaus e s er i ous i nj urydoes notr i s e t o the l evel of p e rs e c u tio n . See Vociv. G onz ales , 409 F. 3d 607, 615 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H er e, Z heng test ifi ed that h e w as h itin the fa ce b yo n e o ff ici al an d then p u n ch ed an d k icke d b yo thers un t i l he fe l l t o the groun d. H e did not cl ai m that the assaultcaused anyser i ou s i njur i es, and he w as abl e t o rus h t o the hos pi t al aft erw ar ds t o be w i th hi s w i fe. H i s s cuff l e w i th the a u th o rities d idn o t co n stitu te p e rse c u tio n , so w e a g re e th a t Z h e n g d idn o t d e m o n stra te h isT he B I A r eas oned thatbecaus e Zheng di d notcont es tthe I J ’ s det erm i nat i on 2 r egar di ng hi s r eques tforC A T r el i ef, he w ai ved thati s s ue on appe al . W e ther efor e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e c la im in Z h e n g ’s p e titio n th a t h e w a s e n title d to s u c h re lie f. See Li n v. A t t ’

y G en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 120- 21 ( 3d C i r . 114) ( “a pe t i t i oneri s deemed t o have ‘ exhaus t ed al l admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , ’ . . . and ther eby‘ pr es erves the r i ghtof j udi ci al 5 el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um bas ed on pas tper s ecut i on. N orhas he s how n a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s r es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . T o demonstr at e el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um bas ed on a f ear of futur e per s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thathe “ha s a genui ne fe ar , and that a reas on able pers on i n [h i s] ci rcum st ances w ou l d fea r per secut i on i f returned to [his ] nat i ve country . ” A bdulr ahm an , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 2 . T o s a tis f yth e o b je c tiv e p ro n g , a pet i t i onerm us ts how thathe w oul d be i ndi vi dual l ys i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on or d e m o n s tr a te a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f p e rs e c u tio n o f

s im ila rl ys itu a te d in d iv id u a ls . Li e v. A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H er e, the I J r eas oned – and the B I A agr eed – thatZ heng fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thatC hi nes e off i ci al s had anyi nt er es ti n hi m . I ndeed, Z heng r emai ned i n C hi na forni ne y ear s fol l ow i ng hi s w i fe’ s s econd f or ced abort i on, y et had no furtherpr obl ems w i th author i t i es . W e ar e notcompel l ed t o di s agr ee w i th the A gency ’ s concl us i on. N ori s ther e anybas i s i n the r ecor d t o concl ude thata patt ern or pr act i ce of

per s ecut i on agai ns ti ndi vi dual s l i ke Zheng exi s t s i n C hi na. B ecaus e Zheng w as i nel i gi bl e foras y l um , w e al s o agr ee thathe w as unabl e t o m eet th e h ig h e r s ta n d a rd a p p lic a b le to a p p lic a tio n s f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. See Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’

y G en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 236- 37 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe 2rev iew , ’ . . . if h e o r she raises a ll issue s b ef o re the B IA ”). 6 p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.