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 Third C irc uit 10-29-2010 

# B i Liu v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1087

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B i L iu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 356. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/356NOT 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. 10- 1087

___________ BI QI NG L I U, 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 094- 787- 109) I m m i gr at i on J udge: Fr eder i c G . L eeds

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober13, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and C O W E N C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober29, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM B i Q i ng L i u pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) a f

f i r mi n g th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) d e n i a l o f a s y l u m, w i th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ C A T ” ) . We2

w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I. B i Q i ng L i u, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2006 and w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , dur i ng w hi ch he c oncede d thathe w as r emovabl e as char ged. L i u appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T p rotec ti o n , claim ing that h e f ea red h e w o u ld b e p erse cu ted f o r his il lega l dep arture and forpart i ci pat i ng i n an under gr ound chur ch i f he r eturned t o C hi na. D ur i ng the hea r i ng on hi s appl i cat i on, L i u t es t i fi ed thathe had be come a C hr i s t i an w hi l e i n the U ni t ed St at es and thathe w oul d choos e t o att end an unde r gr ound chur ch i f he re tu rn e d to C h in a b e c a u se o f f icia llysa n c tio n e d c h u rc h e s d id n o t p ra c tice o r re f lec t h is re lig io u s b e lief

s. L iu tes tifie d th a t a f

rie n d to ld h im th a t th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld

“ p e rse c u te” h im if

h e a tten d e d a n u n d e rg ro u n d c h u rc h a n d h is m o th e r to ld h im h e w o u ld be arr est ed. A dm i nis trat i ve R ecord (“A R ”) at11 3, 11 6-17. A fri end from chu rch al so t es t i fi ed on Li u’ s behal f, s t at i ng thathe knew s om eone w ho fl ed C hi na t o avoi d bei ng a rr e s t e d f

o ra t t e n d i n g a n u n d e r g r o u n d c h u r c h . A R a t1 4 8 . I n a d d i t i o n t o th i s t e s t i m o n y, L i u s ubm i t t ed a numberof document s , i ncl udi ng St at e D epart m entr eport s on r el i gi ous f re e d o m a n d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in C h in a a n d a rticle s a b o u t cr a c k d o w n s o n C h ristia n s in C h in a . T h e IJ d en ied re li ef an d o rde red L iu’s rem o v al t o C h ina. A lth o u g h h e f o u n d L iu’s t es t i m onycr edi bl e and de t erm i ned thathe had e s t abl i s hed a s ubj ect i ve fe arof3

per s ecut i on, the I J concl uded thatL i u had nots how n an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s for h is fea r. T h e B IA af

firm ed , h o lding that, alth o u g h “the rec o rd sh o w s tha t som e lea d ers and att endee s of thes e [unde r gr ound C hr i s t i an] chur ches fac e pr obl ems, w e agr ee w i th the I m m i gr at i on J udge thatthe r ecor d does notpr ovi de an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s that th e r e s p o n d e n twi l l f

a c e p e r s e c u t i o n . ” AR a t3 . L i u f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252 t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval . I n thi s cas e, the B I A aff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the I J and di s cus s ed s om e of the b a s e s f o r t h e IJ ’s d e c is io n , s o w e th e re f o re re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e IJ a n d B IA . See C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n doi ng s o, w e r evi ew fac tual f in d in g s f o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e a n d m a yn o t d istu rb th e m “ ‘u n les s a n yre a so n a b le adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ’ ” Sandi e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 562 F . 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )). W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overconcl us i ons of l aw , s ubj ectt o the es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of def er ence acc or ded age ncydeci s i on- m aki ng. See Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 231 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). U n d e r th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t (“ IN A ” ), an a p p lica n t m a yd e m o n stra te eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum b ysh o w ing eith er p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . L i u as s ert s thathe es t abl i s hed aL i u m ent i ons the deni al of hi s C A T cl ai m onl yi n the l as tpar agr aph of hi s br i ef, 1 w hi ch cons i s t s of fi ve s ent ence s . H e s t at es thatthe “c ountrycondi t i on r eport s i n evi dence d e m o n stra te th a t th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t ro u tin e lysu b jec ts re tu rn e d sm u g g led a lien s to degr adi ng act s of t or tur e. ” Pet . B r i ef a t12. L i u di d noti dent i fythi s as an i s s ue pr es ent ed forr evi ew i n hi s br i ef – the s ol e i s s ue pr es ent ed forr evi ew i s hi s r el i gi ous per s ecut i on cl ai m . Fur therm or e, L i u’ s br i ef s et s forth no fac t s r el at ed t o the cl ai m . Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 28( a) ( 5) , ( 7) , and ( 9) r equi r es an appe l l antt o s t at e the i s s ues r ai s ed o n a p p e a l, pr e se n t f

a c ts re lev a n t to th o se iss u e s, a n d a rg u e th e iss u e s w ith c itatio n s to author i t i es and the r ecor d. L i u has notdone s o forhi s C A T cl ai m . “I ti s w el l s ett l ed that an appe l l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyorar gue an i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w ai ver o f th a t is s u e o n a p p e a l.” U n ite d S ta te s v . P e llu lo , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe i s s ue r egar di ng t or tur e on ac countof havi ng been sm u g g led o u t o f

th e c o u n tryis n o t b e f

o re th e C o u rt. 4 w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs and thathe w i l l be t or tur ed forhi s i l l egal departur e fr om C hi na. 1 T o qual i fyforas y l um on the bas i s of a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, an a p p lica n t m u st s h o w b o th a c re d ib le s u b jec tiv e f e a r a n d a n o b

jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le b a sis for the fe ar. L i e v. A shcroft , 39 6 F . 3d 53 0, 53 6 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). In this case, the IJ d e ter m in e d th a t L iu h a d n o t d e m o n stra ted a n o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le b a sis f o r h is s ubj ect i ve fe ar s of per s ecut i on. T her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n s uppor tof that c o n c lu sio n in th e re c o rd . L iu p re se n ted th e tes tim o n yo f a f rie n d re g a rd in g a n in sta n c e in w hich som eon e fl ed C hina t o av oid arres tfor at t end i ng an u nd ergr ou nd chu rch, as w el l as a rticle s a b o u t g o v e rn m e n tal c ra c k d o w n s o n u n sa n c tio n e d re lig io u s g ro u p s a n d S tate D epart m entr eport s . T he I J acknow l edged thatther e w as a w i de var i etyof uns anct i oned re lig io u s a c tiv ityin C h in a a n d th a t so m e p ra c tit io n e rs f a c e d m istre a tm e n t. H e sp e c if ica lly acknow l edged r eport s thatm ember s of s om e under gr ound C hr i s t i an chur ches had5

s uffe r ed abus e. B utthe St at e D epart m entr eport s al s o i ndi cat ed thatgovernm ent r epr es s i on ort ol er ance var i es bas ed on l ocal e, the natur e of the gr oup, and the s i ze of the chur ch. T he I J concl uded thathe coul d not“extr apol at e” f r om thi s evi dence thatL i u had carr i ed hi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s forhi s fea rthathe w o u ld b e p e rs e c u te d . L i u ar gues thatthe I J bas ed hi s deci s i on on “pur e s pecul at i on” thatL i u w oul d not be per s ecut ed and i gnor ed the St at e D epart m entr eporton I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom. Pet . B r i ef a t9. T he B I A has al r eadyr es ponded t o thi s ar gum ent , poi nt i ng out th a t th e IJ id e n tifie d a n d d isc u ss e d th e re p o rt in h is d e c isio n , A R a t 3 -4 , 6 2 , an d th a t itis L iu w h o a s k e d th e IJ a n d th e B o a rd to s p e c u la te th a t h e w o u ld b e p e rs e c u te d . W e a g re e . L i u has the bur den of pr ovi ng hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) , but hi s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s r el i gi ous pr act i ce c l ai m w as devoi d of s peci fi cs . Forexampl e, he di d noti ndi cat e w her e he mi ghtatt end chur ch i n C hi na and w hetherm ember s of that chur ch, orchur ches i n the ar ea, have f ace d i ncr eas ed s crut i ny , har as s m ent , orper s ecut i on f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e IJ a p p ro p ria telyre f u se d to “ e x tra p o late ” a n o b jec tiv e ly r eas onabl e bas i s forL i u’ s fea rof per s ecut i on fr om the art i cl es he s ubm i t t ed bec aus e the S ta te D e p a rt m e n t r e p o rt s in d ic a te d th a t tr e a tm e n t o f u n s a n c tio n e d re lig io u s g ro u p s v a ri e d . T h u s, th e e v id e n c e in th is re c o rd d o e s n o t es tab lish th a t L iu “ w o u ld b e in d iv id u a lly sing led o u t fo r pe rsec u ti o n ” o r th at th ere is a “sy stem ati c, pe rva sive , o r org an ized ” p att ern and pr act i ce of

per s ecut i ng “under gr ound” C hr i s t i ans i n C hi na. Si oe Ti en W ong, 5396

F . 3 d at 23 2 -33 (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he B IA ’s determ i nati on that Liu i s not el i gibl e for asy l um w i l l be u ph el d b ecause it i s s u p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . B e c a u se th e th re sh o ld f o r a sy lu m is lo w e r th a n th e th re sh o ld f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, L iu ’s in a b ili tyto e sta b lish h is e lig ib ility f

o r a s y lu m n e c e s s a ri ly u n d e rm in e s h is e lig ib ility f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. Si oe Ti en W ong, 539 F. 3d at236- 37. 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.