2008 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 7-11-2008 

# Ou 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 . 07-3118

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ou v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 852. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/852NOT 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 . 07- 3118

___________ M I N HANG OU, 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 78- 928- 156) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l ber t 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 une 2, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D A N D R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y11, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M i n H ang O u pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on2

A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) or derof r emoval . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on. I. O u, 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 2004 w i t houthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed. H e conc edes r emovabi l i t y , buts eeks as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) on t he gr ounds thathe fea r s bei ng per s ecut ed and t or tur ed forhi s pr act i ce of Fal un G ong. O u t es t i fi ed bef

or e the I J t hathi s fatherbegan t o pr act i ce Fal un G ong i n 2000, and thathe and hi s m ot herbegan t o pr act i ce i n 2001. A ccor di ng t o O u, C hi nes e author i t i es a rr e s t e d h i s f

a t h e ri n M a r c h 2 0 0 1 a n d d e t a i n e d h i m f o ra p p r o x i ma t e l ytwo mo n t h s . Ou t e s t i f i e d th a th i s f

a t h e rwa s t o r tu r e d d u r i n g th a tt i me , b u td i d n o ts p e c i f yh o w. He s ubm i t t ed a l ett erfr om hi s fatherdes cr i bi ng the C hi nes e governm ent ’ s “cr ack- dow n” on F a l u n G o n g p r a c t i t i o n e r s a n d h i s a r r e s t , a n d s t a t i n g th a th e h a d b e e n “ s e v e r e l y” in ter ro g a ted . O u a lso tes tifie d th a t h e c o n tin u e d p ra c ticin g F a lu n G o n g re g u lar lyu n til fi nal l yl eavi ng C hi na i n J ul y2003. H e t es t i fi ed thatnei t herhe norhi s m otherw er e eve r arr est ed, bu tt hat he w as di scr i m i nated againstatschoo l aft er hi s father’ s arres t . H e al so t es t i fi ed that , aft erauthor i t i es l earned thathe pr act i ces Fal un G ong, he w as deni ed j ob op po rtun i t i es. T h e IJ d e n ie d O u ’s c la im s o n th e s o le b a s is th a t h is te s tim o n yw a s n o t c re d ib le . O n a p p e a l, th e B IA a ss u m e d th a t O u ’s te stim o n yh a d b e e n c re d ib le, b u t d ism iss e d h isW e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . W her e, as her e, the B I A i s s ues 1 i t s ow n rul i ng on t he mer i t s , w e r evi ew onl ythe dec i s i on of the B I A . See C havarr i a v. G onzal es , 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs for s ubs t ant i al evi dence , and mustaff i r m them unl es s “a r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude otherw i s e. ” I d. 3 appea l on t he bas i s t hathe had f ai l ed t o carr yhi s bur den of pr oof. O u pet i t i ons forr evi ew o f th e B IA ’s ord er. 1 II. O u raised claim s fo r asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d reli ef u n d er C A T b ef

o re the A g en cy . O n h is pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew , h o w ev er, he li m it s h is ch all en g e to th e A g en cy ’s rul i ng t o i t s deni al of hi s cl ai m foras y l um . A ccor di ngl y , w e addr es s onl ythatcl ai m . See A laka v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 5 6 F . 3 d 8 8 , 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A n ap pli cant m aydem on strat e el i gibi l i t yfor asy l um byshow i ng ei t her past p erse cu ti o n (th u s sh ift ing the b u rde n to the g o v ern m en t t o sh o w ch an g ed co u n try c o n d i t i o n s ) , o ra w e l l - f

o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n , o n a c c o u n to f a s t a tu t o r i l yp rotec ted g rou n d . S ee G h eb reh iw o t v. A tt ’yG en . , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); C h av arria, 4 4 6 F . 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T o estab li sh a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us ts how both a “s ubj ect i vel ygenui ne fe arof per s ecut i on and a n o b j e c t i v e l yr e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t yo f p e r s e c u t i o n . ” Gh e b r e h i wo t , 4 6 7 F . 3 d a t3 5 1 . An appl i cantcan s how an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof futur e per s ecut i on bys how i ng ei ther that “‘ he o r s he w ou l d b e i nd i vidual l ysi ng l ed o ut forpersecut i on or that there i s a p a ttern o r p ra c tice in h is o r h e r c o u n try. . . o f p e rse c u tio n o f

a g ro u p o f

p e rso n s s im ilarlyT h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t “th e e n tirety ” o f O u ’s b rie f

c o n tain s a rg u m e n ts 2 unexhaus t ed bef

or e the B I A . O u, how ever , s peci fi cal l yr ai s ed thi s ar gum enti n hi s br i ef b e f o re th e B IA . (A .1 1 -1 2 .) 4 s itu a te d to th e a p p lic a n t[ .]’ ” Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). In th is c a se , O u a ttem p ted to d e m o n stra te e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m b ysh o w in g b o th p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n a n d a we l l - f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . T h e BI A ru l e d th a tOu had nots how n pas tper s ecut i on, and thatrul i ng i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he onl yevi dence of m i s t r eatm entt hatO u pr es ent ed w as hi s t es t i m onythathe had be en d iscri m inated ag ains t atsch o o l and d en ied jo b o p p o rtu n it ies as a resu lto f h is fathe r’s a rr e s t a n d h is p ra c tic e o f F a lu n G o n g . O u d id n o t o th e rw is e e la b o ra te o n th e s e e v e n ts . T hus , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatO u fai l ed t o s how that thes e eve nt s r os e t o t he l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 168 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( di s cus s i ng ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch ec onom i c depr i vat i on r i s es t o the le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n ). O u ar gues , how ever , t hatt he B I A fai l ed t o addr es s w hetherhe had a w el l - founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on. T hatar gum enti s w el l - t aken. O u t es t i fi ed thathe pr act i ced 2 Fal un G ong i n C hi na and c ont i nues t o pr act i ce i ther e, and w e have r ecogni zed thatthe pr act i ce of

Fal un G ong i s a s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ound. See G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 267- 68 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , s uper s eded on othergr ounds bys t atut e as s t at ed i n K ai t a v. At t ’ yGe n . , – F . 3 d – , No . 0 6 - 3 2 8 8 , 2 0 0 8 WL 8 7 9 0 5 2 , a t* 6 ( 3 d Ci r . Ap r . 3 , 2 0 0 8 ) . Ou f u rth e r te stif

ied th a t C h in e se a u th o rities h a v e “ c ra c k e d d o w n ” o n F a lu n G o n g , tha t h isIn h is brief, O u reli es o n a 2 0 0 6 C o u n tryR ep o rto n H u m an R igh ts Pra cti ce s as s u p p o rt 3 fo r th e o b

jecti v e re aso n ab lene ss o f h is fea r of p erse cu ti o n , an d ap p ea rs t o fa u ltthe B IA fornothavi ng cons i der ed thi s r epor t . A s O u conce des , how ever , nei t herthi s norany othercountr yr epor ti s cont ai ned i n t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. A ccor di ngl y , the B I A w as notr equi r ed t o cons i dert hi s r epor ts ua s pont e, s ee M eghani v. I N S, 236 F. 3d 843, 848 ( 7th C i r . 2001) , buton r emand i tm ayt ake of fi ci al not i ce of

the r epor t , s ee Zubeda v. A sh c ro f t, 33 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t n e ith e r th is rep o rtn o r th e re co rd d em o n str ates a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n . B ec au se th e B IA d id n o t ad d re ss th a t issu e , h o w e v e r, w e c a n n o t d o so a n d m u st re m a n d f o r th e B IA to addr es s i ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . See Li , 400 F. 3d at163. W e expr es s no opi ni on on (c o n tin u e d ...) 5 fatherw as arr es t ed, det ai ned fort w o m onths and t or tur ed forpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong, and that he “kn ow s” he t oo w i l l be arr est ed if r eturned to C hina. (A . 64 , 66 -68, 74 . ) H e al so s ubm i t t ed a l ett erfr om hi s fatherand hi s ow n as y l um appl i cat i on s t at ement , both of w hi ch s t at e thatt he C hi nes e governm enthas “cr acke d dow n” on Fal un G ong and p e rse c u ted its p ra c tit io n e rs. T h e B IA a ss u m e d th a t O u ’s te stim o n yw a s c re d ib le. It d id notdi s cus s t he otherevi dence O u s ubm i t t ed orfaul thi m forfai l i ng t o offe raddi t i onal evi dence . I ns t ead, i tm er el yl i m i t ed i t s di s cus s i on t o t he i s s ue of pa s tper s ecut i on w i thout addr es s i ng w hetherO u’ s t es t i m onyand evi dence carr i ed hi s bur den of de m ons t r at i ng a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on i f r eturned t o C hi na. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the B IA ’s ru lin g a n d re m a n d w ith a n in s tru c tio n to c o n s id e r t h a t a s p e c t o f O u ’s a s y lu m c la im . See G hebr ehi w ot , 467 F. 3d at355 ( r emandi ng w her e I J cons i der ed onl ypas tper s ecut i on an d n o t evid en ce relev an t t o a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n ). S ee also S u k w an p u tr a v . G o n za les, 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (r em an d ing fo r co n side rati o n o f a p att ern o r pra cti ce o f p erse cu ti o n ). 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 w hetherthe r ecor d cont ai ns s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng a conc l us i on thatO u ei t her has ordoes nothave a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on. 6