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 4-24-2008 

# 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 . 07-1639

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
" C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1333. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1333T h e H o n o ra b le P a u l R . M ich e l, C h ief Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * fort he Feder al C i r cui t , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 1639 WEI M I NG C HE N, Pet i t i oner v. A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es,

R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 73 768 106) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H e n ryS . D o g in Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and M I C H E L , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 24, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTU ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O t herC ruel , I nhum an orD egr adi ng 1 T r eatm entorPuni s hm ent , D ec. 10, 1984, 1465 U . N . T . S. 85. A s of M ar ch 2003, I N S became U ni t ed St at es C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces 2 ( “ C I S ” ) , a n a g e n c y w i t h i n t h e D e p a r t m e n to f H o m e l a n d S e c u r i t y. 2 M I C H E L , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge. W ei M i ng C hen pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derforr emoval . T he i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) r ej ect ed C hen’ s cl ai m s foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on u n d e r th e U n ited N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ) b a se d p rin c ip a llyo n h is 1 fi ndi ng thatC hen’ s t es t i m onyand otherevi dence w er e notcr edi bl e. T he B oar d of Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) su stai n ed the re m o v al on the s am e b asis. B ec au se th e IJ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on and otherfac tual fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e r eci t e onl ythos e fa ct s r el evantt o our analy si s. C hen i s a nat i ve an d n at i on al of the P eop l e’s R epu bli c of C hina. H e fi rs t at t em pted t o en t er the U nit ed S t at es on M ay23 , 19 95 , usi ng a fraudu l ent J apan ese pas s por tand fa l s e name. T he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) det ai ned 2 C hen and t ook an ai rpor ts t at ementi n hi s nat i ve C hi nes e. I n t he s t at ement , C hen cl ai m ed t o have f l ed C hi na due t o per s ecut i on forbei ng C athol i c. A depor t at i on or derw as ent er ed on J ul y12, 1995. C hen appl i ed foras y l um butl at erw i t hdr ew hi s appl i cat i on and acc ept ed deport at i on.3

O n Ja n u a ry1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , C h e n a g a in a ttem p ted to e n ter th e U n ited S tate s illeg a lly , this t i me a torne a rH i da l go , Tex a s . CI S e nc ou nt e r e d h i m on Fe brua r y16 , 20 04 , a tW i l l i a m P. H obbyA i rpor ti n H ous t on, w her e C hen pr es ent ed a f r audul entK or ean pa s s por tand gave a f a lse n a m e . H e d e n ied h a v in g e v e r e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s b e f o re . H e w a s a g a in d e t a i n e d a n d d e p o r t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e b e g u n . W i t h th e a s s i s t a n c e o f a n a t t o r n e y, C hen fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um on J ul y14, 2004, cl ai m i ng thathi s w i fe’ s pr egnanc y had bee n for ci bl yabort ed i n 1993 and thatthe C hi nes e governm enthad di s cover ed that he i s a pr act i t i onerof Fal un G ong. A ft ers ever al pr ocee di ngs t o cl ar i fyC hen’ s actual i dent i t yand obt ai n t he corr ect in terp re ter , the IJ u lti m a telyh e ld a h e a rin g o n F e b ru a ry2 , 2 0 0 6 , w h e re C h e n tes tifie d in mo r e d e t a i l a b o u tt h e a l l e g e d f o r c e d a b o r t i o n a n d h i s i n v o l v e me n twi t h F a l u n Go n g . He tes tifie d th a t alth o u g h th e a b o rtio n o c c u rre d in 1 9 9 3 , h e d id n o t m a rryh is n o w w if e u n til S e p t e mb e r1 9 9 7 a n d t h a ts h e a tt i me s l i v e d wi t h h e rp a r e n t s p r i o rt o th e i rma r r i a g e . He fur theradmi t t ed thathe had i n fac ti l l egal l yent er ed the U ni t ed St at es befor e and ha d been d etaine d , co n tr aryto h is prior stat em en ts. Im m ed iat elyfo ll o w ing the h ea ri n g , the IJ r ender ed hi s deci s i on deny i ng as y l um . T he I J s t at ed thathe di d notfi nd C hen t o be cr edi bl e i n gener al and thathi s t es t i m onyw as s peci fi cal l ynotcr edi bl e as t o ei t herthe a l l e g e d f o r c e d a b o r t i o n o rt h e a l l e g e d f u tu r e p r o s e c u t i o n f

o rp r a c t i c i n g F a l u n Go n g . He di d, how ever , fi nd t hatC hen demonstr at ed s ubs t ant i al know l edge of the pr act i ces of Fal un G ong.T he I J w ho hel d t he O ct ober5, 2006 hear i ng and r ender ed the dec i s i on aff i r m ed by 3 the B I A and appe al ed her e w as t he s ame I J w ho r ender ed the February2, 2006 deci s i on. 4 C hen appe al ed t o t he B I A . W hi l e the appe al w as pendi ng, i tw as confi r m ed that C h e n h a d p re v io u slyb e e n su b jec t to a d e p o rta tio n o rd e r in 1 9 9 5 . C IS ter m in a ted th e f ile from his 20 04 entryand el ect ed to r ei nst at e t he July11 , 19 95 dep ort at i on order, so in f o rm in g C h e n o n Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 . C h e n th e n re q u e ste d p ro tec tio n f ro m re m o v a l d u e to f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n a n d to rtu re . A C IS o f f icia l to o k sw o rn tes tim o n yf ro m C h e n o n Ju ly 14, 2006, i n a cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew w i t h hi s at t orneypr es ent . C hen t es t i fi ed then fort he f irst tim e th a t h e w a s b e a ten w ith a b a to n a n d a ss a u lted b yC h in e se p o lice o f f ice rs in conj unct i on w i t h t he for ced a bor t i on of hi s then gi r l fr i end. H e cl ai m ed thathi s or i gi nal 1 9 9 5 e n tr yh a d b e e n to e s c a p e th is p e rs e c u tio n a n d to rt u re a s w e ll a s th e f o rc e d a b o rt io n . H e furthert es t i fi ed thathi s w i fe a nd hi s daught er( bor n aft erthei rl egal m arr i age i n 1997) w e re h a ra ss e d d u e to h is im p lica tio n in F a lu n G o n g a c tiv iti e s. A lth o u g h f in d in g h is claim s reg ard ing the f

o rcible a b o rt ion an d asso ciated b ea ti n g s n o t cred ible, the C IS offi ci al found thatC hen’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s Fal un G ong i nvol vementw arr ant ed referral t o an IJ . T he I J hel d a hea r i ng on O ct ober5, 2006. I n addi t i on t o t es t i fy i ng t o t he for ced 3 abor t i on of hi s gi r l fr i end, hi s beat i ng atthe hands of the pol i ce f orpr ot es t i ng the abort i on, and hi s fea rof per s ecut i on forpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong, C hen forthe fi r s tt i m e t es t i fi ed that h e w a s a lso f

in e d a n d u lti m a telyb e a ten a n d to rtu re d b yC h in e se a u th o rities in 1 9 9 6 d u e to5

hi s unauthor i zed a t t empt ed emi gr at i on fr om C hi na t o t he U ni t ed St at es . H e t es t i fi ed that i n addi t i on t o bei ng fi ned tw i ce, he w as i m pr i s oned, beat en s ever el y( i ncl udi ng w i t h a ham m er) , and t ortured w i t h electri c shock st i cks. T he I J al s o had bef

or e hi m t w o l ett er s fr om C hen’ s w i fe. T he fi r s t , dat ed Sept ember3, 2006, r el at es det ai l s of the for ced a bor t i on i n 1993 and s t at es thatC hen w as hi ton the hea d byt he bi r t h contr ol author i t i es . I tal s o s t at es thatC hen pr act i ced Fal un G o n g a n d th a t sh e a n d h e r d a u g h ter h a d b e e n h a ra ss e d a n d th re a ten e d . R e g a rd in g h is tr eatm entupon r epatr i at i on fr om t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1996, the l et t erm er el ys t at es that C hen w as fi ned and de t ai ned and doe s notm ent i on anybeat i ngs ort or tur e. I n t he s econd lette r w ritten late r, h o w e v e r, C h e n ’s w if e d e sc rib e s th e b e a tin g s a n d to rtu re a s w e ll. T he I J deni ed r el i ef unde rboth t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) and the C A T , fi ndi ng t hatC hen w as notcr edi bl e due t o i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s t es t i m onyand th e re c o rd e v id e n c e . H e a lso f o u n d th a t C h e n ’s te stim o n yw a s n o t ad e q u a tely c o rro b o ra ted to re m e d yth e in c o n sis ten c ies a n d th a t C h e n h a d d e m o n stra ted a p ro p e n sity t o l i e and w i t hhol d t he trut h. C h e n a p p e a led to th e B IA . T h e B IA a f f irm e d th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on and di s cerned no cl earerr ori n hi s fi ndi ngs . T hus , the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T . C hen then t i m el yfi l ed the pr es entpet i t i on forr evi ew . W e have j ur i s di ct i on underSect i on 242( a) ( 1) o f th e IN A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1).C hen ar gues t hatt he I J err oneous l yr el i ed on hi s 1995 s t at ementgi ven thati tw as an 4 a i rp o r ts t a t e m e n tt a k e n , h e a l l e g e s , w h i l e h e w a s u n d e rth e c o n tr o l o f a “ s m u g g l e r . ” We r ej ectthatt hi s cons t i tut es r ever s i bl e err orbeca us e the I J r el i ed on numer ous ot her in c o n sis ten c ies th a t co n stitu te s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h is a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on. W e al s o not e thather e, the ai rpor ts t at ementw as t aken i n C hen’ s nat i ve lang u ag e w ith the a ssist an ce o f a n interpre ter. 6 II. Wh e n , a s h e r e , t h e BI A h a s a d o p t e d th e r e a s o n i n g o f th e I J i n i t s d e c i s i o n , we r evi ew t he dec i s i on of the I J . K i bi nda v. A t t ’ yG en. of the U ni t ed St at es , 477 F. 3d 113, 11 8-19 (3d C i r. 20 07 ). T he B IA and IJ decis i on s w ere based on the IJ’ s adverse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination ag ains t C h en , fin d ing that h is t esti m o n yw as n o t cred ible. In r evi ew i ng an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, w e l ook fors ubs t ant i al evi dence su p p o rt ing the d eterm ination . X ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 9 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e IJ i s ent i t l ed t o cons i deranyand al l i ncons i s t enci es and omi s s i ons i n t he evi dence and t es t i m onygi ven byan appl i cant . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ; X i e, 359 F. 3d at243. H e re , th e in c o n s is te n c ie s in C h e n ’s v a ri o u s s ta te m e n ts a n d te s tim o n yw e re le g io n . H e has gi ven a myr i ad of di ffe r entexpl anat i ons forhi s i l l egal entr i es i nt o t he U ni t ed S tate s, c o n tin u in g to re p o rt n e w a n d in c re a sin g lyse rio u s a lleg a tio n s a t ea c h sta g e o f h is pr otr act ed i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . A tthe t i m e of hi s fi r s tentr y , C hen pr es ent ed a fr audul entpas s por tand l i ed abouthi s i dent i t y . H e then admi t t ed hi s true i dent i t yand c laim e d o n lyth a t h e w a s p e rse c u ted f o r b e in g C a th o lic. H e g a v e n o m e n tio n o f h is 4 gir l fri end ’s forced ab ort i on no r anyscuffle w i t h C hinese aut ho ri t i es.T he governm entconce des t hatthe I J err oneous l ys t at ed thatC hen cl ai m ed t o be a 5 U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen w hen ques t i oned byC I S i n February2004. W e hol d, how ever , t hat thi s err orw as harm l es s i n l i ghtof the numer ous ot heri ncons i s t enci es ci t ed and r el i ed on byt he IJ. 7 N e a r l y a d e c a d e l a t e r , C h e n a g a i n a t t e m p t e d t o e n t e rth e U n i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l y, a g a in p re se n tin g a f

ra u d u len t p a ss p o rt a n d ly in g a b o u t h is id e n tity . H e a lso lied a b o u t h is pr evi ous det ai nm entand deport at i on. H e l at eradmi t t ed hi s i dent i t yand thathe had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n d e p o r t e d , b u th e g a v e a d i f f e r e n te x p l a n a t i o n f

o rh i s e a r l i e ri l l e g a l e n tr y, a lleg in g f

o r th e f irst tim e th a t h is g irlfr ien d ’s p re g n a n c yin 1 9 9 3 h a d b e e n f o rc ib ly a b o rt e d . H e a ls o c la im e d h is F a lu n G o n g a c tiv itie s m a d e h im a ta rg e t f o r p e rs e c u tio n . B uthe ment i oned no bea t i ngs oral t er cat i ons w i t h C hi nes e author i t i es i n 1993 ori n 1996 w hen he returned to C hina aft er bei ng dep ort ed from the U nit ed S t at es. O nl yaft eras y l um w as deni ed i n February2006 di d C hen cl ai m thathe had be en b e a te n b yC h in e s e a u th o ri tie s w h e n h e p ro te s te d h is g ir lf ri e n d ’s a b o rt io n in 1 9 9 3 , i.e ., even be for e hi s i ni t i al i l l egal entr y . B uteven then he made no ment i on of anybeat i ng or det ai nm enti n 1996 forunauthor i zed e m i gr at i on. O nl yaft erthe C I S offi ci al i ndi cat ed that the for ced a bor t i on and bea t i ng s t or yw as notcr edi bl e di d C hen cl ai m thathe had be en beat en, det ai ned, and t or tur ed w i t h el ectr i c s hock s t i cks upon hi s r eturn t o C hi na i n 1996 af ter de p o rt ati o n . W e h o ld tha t th ese n u m ero u s inc o n sist en cies e stab li sh that the IJ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . 5T o b e e lig ib le f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l u n d e r S e c tio n 2 4 1 (b )( 3 ) o f th e IN A , 8 6 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) , t he appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thathi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be th re a ten e d in [ th e c o u n tryo f re m o v a l] b e c a u se o f

ra c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . T o qual i fy forr el i ef unde rt he C A T , t he appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not that h e w o u ld b e torture d if rem o v ed . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). 8 III . C hen ar gues on appea l t hatt he I J , des pi t e hi s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, found that( 1) hi s gi r l fr i end w as for ced t o have a n abor t i on i n 1993, ( 2) C hen w as d e tain e d a n d f

in e d in 1 9 9 6 f

o r le a v in g th e c o u n tryw ith o u t au th o riz a tio n , an d (3 ) C h e n is a Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner . H e cont ends thatthe I J ’ s j udgm ents houl d have be en r ever s ed beca us e thes e fi ndi ngs al one es t abl i s h ent i t l ementt o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef underthe C A T . W e di s agr ee. W e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs and i nfer ence s fors ubs t ant i al 6
ev iden ce . C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 1. A s t o t he al l eged f

or ced a bor t i on i n 1993, the I J cl ear l yfound thatno m ar i t al re latio n sh ip , d e f

a c to o r o th e rw ise , ex iste d b e tw e e n C h e n a n d M s. D o n g in 1 9 9 3 . T h is f in d in g is s u p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e ; C h e n tes tifie d th a t th e yd id n o t m a rryu n til 1997 and that , al t hough t heycohabi t ed, M s . D ong al s o l i ved w i t h herpar ent s s om e of the tim e p rio r to th e ir m a rria g e . A s C h e n c o n c e d e s, c a se law p ro v id e s th a t h e c a n n o t cla im pr ot ect i on s ol el ydue t o for ced s t er i l i zat i on orabor t i on of a gi r l fr i end t o w hom he i s not m arried. L in v . U . S . D ep ’to f Ju sti ce , 4 9 4 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 4 -14 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (en b an c);C hen al s o ar gues t hathe ca n cl ai m per s ecut i on bas ed on M s . D ong’ s abor t i on 7 b ec au se th e g o v ern m en t held h im resp o n sible fo r resist ing the a b o rt ion . B u t th e IJ s peci fi cal l yfound thathi s evi dence of thatal l eged r es i s t ance and cons equenc es ther eof w as notcr edi bl e. 9 M at t erof S- L - L - , 24 I & N D ec. 1, 28 ( B . I . A . 2006) . A l t hough C hen ar gues ot her t es t i m onys uppor t s a fi ndi ng of m arr i age i n 1993, s uch t es t i m onydoes notchange the fa ct thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he I J ’ s contr aryfi ndi ng. C hen al s o ar gues , w i t hout 7 s uppor t i ng author i t y , t hatt he cl os e r el at i ons hi p betw een Chen and M s . D ong and the fa ct th a tth e ye v e n tu a l l yd i d ma r r ya r e s u f f i c i e n t . We h o l d th a tth i s i s c o n t r a r yt o th e c a s e l a w, and w e ce r t ai nl ycannotbr oaden the rul e t o encompas s the ca s e atbarw her e no mar i t al r el at i ons hi p, offi ci al orunoffi ci al , w as found. 2. T h e IJ d id f

in d th a t th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t d e tain e d a n d f in e d C h e n a f

ter h is r etur n t o C hi na i n 1996, t hough he found thatC hen’ s t es t i m onythathe w as beat en and t or tur ed as w el l w as notcr edi bl e. C hen now ar gues thatthe l ar ge amountof the fi nes alon e, w h ich e x ce ed s h is an n u al i n co m e, co n sti tutes p erse cu ti o n . H e c it es L i v. A tt ’y G en . o f th e U n it ed S tat es, i n w h ich w e h eld th at “d eli b era te i m p o sit ion o f se v ere e c o n o m ic d isa d v a n tag e w h ich th re a ten s a p e tit io n e r’s life o r f re e d o m m a yc o n stitu te per s ecut i on. ” 400 F. 3d 157, 168 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( emphasi s added) . I n L i , the appl i cant h a d n o t o n lyb e e n a ss e ss e d a n o n e ro u s f in e b u t w a s a lso e f

f e c tiv e lyb lac k listed f

ro m a ll g a in f u l em p lo ym e n t. In c o n tra st, th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e f in e s im p o se d h e re , w h ile10

s t eep, endange r ed hi s fami l y ’ s abi l i tyt o s uppor ti t s el f. I n fac t , the evi dence i ndi cat es t hat he and/ orhi s fami l ym ember s pai d t he fi nes , and ther e i s no evi dence thattheycaus ed any s ever e ors ubs t ant i al har ds hi p w hat s oever . W e thus s ee no e r r ori n t he I J ’ s hol di ng that thes e fi nes di d notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on. O n t he contr ary , i ti s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . 3. L as t l y , w hi l e the I J di d fi nd t hatC hen has the know l edge t o pr act i ce Fal un G ong, he di d notfi nd cr edi bl e C hen’ s as s er t i ons thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed forpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong upon hi s r etur n t o C hi na. T he I J s t r es s ed thatC hen had not , i n hi s vi ew , ever been s ubj ect ed t o per s ecut i on forpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong w hi l e i n C hi na, and he r epea t edl ys t at ed thathe does notbel i eve thatC hen w i l l be per s ecut ed forFal un G ong pr act i ces i n t he futur e s houl d he be r eturned t o C hi na. I n addi t i on, the s ame I J i ndi cat ed i n hi s February2, 2006 deci s i on t hathe di s bel i eved Chen’ s s t oryabouthow he had al l egedl ybeen i m pl i cat ed as a Fal un G ong pr act i t i onerthr ough a fe l l ow adher entw ho w as arr es t ed. W hi l e w e appr eci at e thatt he St at e D epart m entand court s i n otherFal un G ong cas es have r ecogni zed thatC hi na has s ever el yper s ecut ed Fal un G ong adher ent s both for p ast an d cu rren t acti v it ies, w e c an n o t sayh ere that su b stan ti al ev iden ce d o es n o t sup p o rt the I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hatC hen w i l l notbe per s ecut ed forFal un G ong pr act i ces w hen he r etur ns t o C hi na. C hen’ s fami l i ar i t yw i t h Fal un G ong does s uppor thi s ar gum ent , buthi s ut t er11

l ack of cr edi bi l i t yi n gener al and, as the I J found, hi s l ack of cr edi bi l i t yas t o hi s pas tand f u tu re F a lu n G o n g a c tiv iti e s in C h in a a re f a tal. G i ven thatt he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on and r el evantfac tual fi ndi ngs a r e s u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , we wi l l d e n yCh e n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.