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- 3840

___________ YUE J I ANG, Pet i t i oner v . A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S , 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 079- 190- 730) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Eugene Pugl i es e

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

J une 9, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 24, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Y ue J i ang, a ci t i zen of

C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on2

A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deci s i on w hi ch uphel d i n partthe I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) or der d e n y in g h is a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m a n d re late d re lief. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill denythe pet i t i on. I J i ang ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2005 w i thouti ns pect i on. H e r ece i ved a N ot i ce t o A ppearand, befor e the I J , conce ded r emovabi l i tyand s oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l, a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). J i ang s oughtas y l um bas ed on per s ecut i on thathe al l eged he endur ed foroppos i ng C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . A tthe mer i t s hear i ng, J i ang t es t i fi ed thathe w as r om ant i cal l yi nvol ved w i th a w om an – J i n Y u – i n C hi na and thattheyw er e mar r i ed i n a tra d iti o n a l w e d d in g c e re m o n yin 2 0 0 4 . H o w e v e r, th e ir m a rria g e w a s n e v e r o f f icia lly r egi s t er ed bec aus e he ha d noty etr eac hed the l egal age. In M a rc h 2 0 0 4 , Jin Y u d isc o v e re d sh e w a s p re g n a n t an d th e c o u p le w e n t in to hi di ng. J i ang t es t i fi ed thats ever al m onths l at er , fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s came t o the hom e w her e theyw er e hi di ng. J i n Y u’ s unauthor i zed pr egnanc yw as di s cover ed, and the offi ci al s t ook heri nt o cus t odyforan abort i on. J i ang s t at ed thathe tr i ed t o s t op the o f f icia ls a n d h e lp Jin Y u b re a k f re e a n d , in th e stru g g le, k n o c k e d o n e o f th e o f f icia ls to the gr ound, i nj ur i ng hi m . T he otheroffi ci al s arr es t ed J i ang and t ook J i n Y u t o a hos pi t al t o t erm i nat e the pr egnanc y . J i ang w as det ai ned forthr ee t o fi ve day s . H e t es t i fi ed that n o th in g h a p p e n e d to h im w h ile h e w a s in ja il.3

A ft era fe w day s , J i ang’ s par ent s vi s i t ed hi m and i nform ed hi m thatJ i n Y u had been s ubj ect ed t o an abort i on. T heythen pai d ¥5000 R M B t o a pr i s on guar d w ho hel ped Jia n g e sc a p e d u rin g a sh if t ch a n g e . Jia n g sta ted th a t h e th e n m e t h is u n c le, w h o g a v e h im m on ey , and he fled t o F uzh ou C i ty . H e subseq uen t l yescaped t o the U nit ed S t at es. T he I J deni ed r el i ef, r eas oni ng thatJ i ang w as i ncr edi bl e and that , notw i ths t andi ng the a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination , h e f ail ed to m ee t his bu rde n o f p roo f. T h e B IA re jec ted th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g , b u t ag re e d w ith th e IJ th a t Jia n g f a iled to d e mo n s tr a t e h i s e l i g i b i l i tyf o ra s y l u m. J i a 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 a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). B e c a u se th e B IA iss u e d its ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan thatof the I J . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e al s o l ook t o the dec i s i on of the I J t o the ext entthatthe B I A defe r r ed t o oradopt ed 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 for s ubs t ant i al evi dence , and w i l l uphol d a fa ctual det erm i nat i on “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 te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). I n deny i ng r el i ef, the B I A r eas oned thatJ i ang fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of demonstr at i ng ei therpas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. J i ang a rg u e s th a t, i n a ss e ss in g w h e th e r h e su f f e re d p e rse c u tio n , the B o a rd e rre d in f a ili n g to4

c o n sid e r th e p sy c h o lo g ica l h a rm h e e n d u re d b e c a u se o f Jin Y u ’s f

o rc e d a b o rtio n . In h is couns el ed br i ef, he quot es Shi L i ang Li n v. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, 494 F. 3d 2 9 6 , 3 1 3 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (en b an c), fo r th e p rop o sit ion that “[ t] h e f ac t th at so m eo n e’s sp o u se h a s b e e n su b

jec ted to a f

o rc e d a b o rtio n o r ste riliza tio n w o u ld n o t b e irre lev a n t to such an analy si s, i tsi m plycou l d n ot pr ov i de fo r as y l um st atus per se . ” H o w ev er, Ji an g ’s ar gum entt akes thi s s t at ementcompl et el youtof cont ext . T he “a nal y s i s ” i n ques t i on conce rned a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch an a s y l um appl i cantdi d notdi r ect l yoppos e coe r ci ve f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licie s, so a s to q u a lifyf o r a sy lu m , an d h a d to d e m o n stra te th a t h is s pous e’ s r es i s t ance t o s uch pol i ci es had bee n i m put ed t o hi m . See i d. ; s ee a l s o L i n- Z heng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 147, 157 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( adopt i ng Shi L i ang Li n and ho l ding t hat s po uses of indi vidual s subj ectt o co erci ve p op ulat i on con trol po l i ci es m ust d em o n str ate the iro w n p erse cu ti o n ). M or e funda m ent al l y , w e do notthi nk the B oar d err ed i n thi s r es pect , as J i ang s ubm i t t ed no evi dence – t es t i m oni al orot herw i s e – abouthi s m ent al s t at e fol l ow i ng the abort i on. N o r are w e c o m p ell ed to d isag ree w ith the B o ard ’s co n clus ion that Jian g ’s det ent i on di d notamount t o per s ecut i on. “To est abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um bas ed on pas tper s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us ts how : ( 1) an i nci dent , ori nci dent s , thatr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) thati s on acc ountof [r es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am]; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed bythe governm entorfor ces the governm enti s ei ther u n ab le or u n w il li n g to co n tr o l. ” M y at T h u v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 0 F . 3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 3 (3d C ir .5

2 0 0 7 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s a n d q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). P e rse c u tio n is lim ited to “ th re a ts t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a th re a t to life a n d f

re e d o m .” F a tin v . IN S , 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). T h u s, to q u a lifya s p e rse c u tio n , co n d u c t m u st b e e x tre m e . S e e id . at 1 2 4 3 . It d o e s n o t in c lu d e “ a ll tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” Id . at 1 2 4 0 . H e re , the B IA re a so n e d th a t Jia n g ’s d e ten tio n , w h ich las ted f iv e d a y s a t m o st, a n d d u ri n g w h ic h h e s u f f e re d n o m is tr e a tm e n t, d id n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n . J ia n g o f f e rs n o g o o d re a s o n to q u e s tio n th a t a s s e s s m e n t. N o r h a s J ian g d e m o n stra ted th a t th e B IA e rre d in h o ld in g th a t h e lac k e d a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. 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 countr y . ” A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 592 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T o s at i s fy the obj ect i ve pr ong, a pet i t i onerm us ts how thathe w oul d be i ndi vi dual l ys i ngl ed outfor per s ecut i on ordemonstr at e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i ndi vi dual s . L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H er e, the B I A r eas oned thatJ i ang fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on bas ed on ei therhi s oppos i t i on t o C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es orhi s i l l egal exi tfr om that c o u n try. W i th regard t o Ji ang ’s fear based o n h i s r esi st ance to the fa m i l yplanni ng l aw s,6

J i ang ar gued thatbeca us e he oppos ed the l aw and i nj ur ed a f ami l ypl anni ng offi ci al , he w oul d l i kel ybe s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on. T he B I A r eas oned, w i thoutfur ther el abor at i on, that“[J i ang] has notes t abl i s hed a w el l - founded f earthathe w i l l be per s ecut ed upon hi s r eturn t o C hi na bec aus e he ha d oppos ed the l aw s governi ng m arr i age a n d p o p u latio n c o n tro l.” A R 4 . In h is b rie f , Jia n g a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d b yf a ili n g to di s cus s the bas i s fori t s concl us i on, and he c i t es s t at ement s fr om hi s ow n t es t i m onyand a f f id a v it in s u p p o rt o f

h is c la im th a t h e w o u ld b e s in g le d o u t f o r p e rs e c u tio n . Speci fi cal l y , he s t at ed thatthe off i ci al he knocke d dow n s w or e r evenge agai ns thi m and thatotheroffi ci al s w er e angryabouthi s es cape and w ant ed t o arr es thi m . A l though t he B oar d’ s s t at ementi s vague, w e under s t and i tt o m ean ( 1) J i ang’ s al l egat i ons do not am o u n t t o p erse cu ti o n , an d /or (2) the re w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rt hi s al l egat i ons . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatboth of thes e i nt erpr et at i ons ar e s uppor t ed by the r ecor d, w e s ee no e r r ori n t he B I A ’ s deci s i on. Fi r s t , J i ang does nots uffi ci ent l yal l ege thathe w oul d s uffe rper s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o C hi na. H e t es t i fi ed thathe fe ar s C hi nes e author i t i es w i l l arr es thi m beca us e he e s cape d fr om pr i s on and bec aus e the guar d he knocke d dow n s w or e he “ w oul d not[l ethi m ] l i ve a n o th e r g o o d d a yif

h e c o u ld g e t [ Jia n g ].” A R 3 8 2 . W h ile th e se th re a ts a re c e rta in ly tr oubl i ng, ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s ugges tthatoffi ci al s ar e i n anyw ay m o ti v ated to h arm Jian g b ase d o n a p rotec ted g rou n d – i. e., h is r esistanc e to C h ina’s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . I ndeed, J i ang has nots how n thatoffi ci al s w oul d s eek hi m outforanyr eas on otherthan hi s as s aul ton a governm entoffi ci al and s ubs equentes cape fr om

jail. Second, even i f J i ang had s uffi ci ent l yal l eged thathe w oul d s uffe rper s ecut i on, th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , sa v e f o r sp e c u lativ e sta tem e n ts m a d e b yh im a n d Jin Y u, s ee A R 356, 382, thatJ i ang w oul d s uffe ranym i s tr eatm entatthe hands of g o v ern m en t of

ficials. W ith o u t m o re, w e a re n o t com p ell ed to d isag ree w ith the B o ard ’s concl us i on. A s t o J i ang’ s fea rthathe w i l l be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on beca us e he l eftC hi na i l l egall y , the B IA reas on ed thatthe b ackg round evidence Ji ang subm i t t ed d i d n ot es t abli sh th a t f irst tim e o f

f e n d e rs w h o d e p a rt th e c o u n tryill e g a llya re a b u se d in a n yw a yu p o n th e ir r eturn. J i ang does notcont es tthatconcl us i on i n hi s br i ef. B eca us e J i ang di d notcarr yhi s bur den of pr oof foras y l um , w e al s o agr ee thathe w as unabl e t o m eetthe hi ghers t andar d appl i cabl e t o appl i cat i ons forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . See Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 236- 37 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . N or di d he demonstr at e el i gi bi l i tyforC A T pr ot ect i on. See 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 ). 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.

7