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 Thir d C ir c uit 2-19-2010 

# Zhe n Rui 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 . 08-3908

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " Zhe n R ui C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1861. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1861NOT 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. 08- 3908

___________ Z HE N R UI CH E N, 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 e s p o n d e n t

____________________________________ 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 95- 837- 531) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R os al i nd K . M al l oy

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

J anuary12, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : February19, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerZ hen R ui C hen i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na2

w ho pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ s ( “B I A ”) deci s i on a f f i r mi n g a d e c i s i o n o f

th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) d e n y i n g h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and prot ect i on un der the U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainst T o r tu r e ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , 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. I. C hen ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on Sept ember2001. I n A ugus t2002, he fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um and r el at ed r el i ef a s s ert i ng thathe had be en per s ecut ed under C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . I n the af fi davi tacc om pany i ng hi s appl i cat i on, C hen cl ai m ed thathi s w i fe ha d been s ubj ect ed t o a for ced a bor t i on on M ar ch 8, 2001, and that he had be en for ci bl ys t er i l i zed on M ar ch 15, 2001. O n O ct ober3, 2002, the D epart m ent o f H o m elan d S ec u ri tyissue d a n o ti ce to ap p ea r ch arg ing C h en w ith rem o v ab il ityu n d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 . A t h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s , C h e n te s tif ie d c o n s is te n tly w ith h is a s y lu m a f f id a v it. H e as s ert ed hi s w i fe be came pr egnantw i th thei rthi r d chi l d i n l at e 2000. B utbeca us e s he m iss e d h e r ro u tin e IU D /p re g n a n c yc h e c k u p in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 , fa m ilyp lan n in g o f f icia ls came t o C hen’ s hous e l ooki ng forhi s w i fe— w ho w as hi di ng athers i s t er ’ s hom e. W hen C hen’ s w i fe r eturned home on M ar ch 8, 2001, s he w as t aken bythe off i ci al s t o the L angQ i heal th cl i ni c w her e s he w as s ubj ect ed t o an abort i on. T her eaf t er , on M ar ch 15, 2001, s i x offi ci al s t ook C hen fr om hi s hom e t o the hea l th cl i ni c. H e t es t i fi ed thathe w as re s tr a in e d , in

je c te d w ith a n a e s th e s ia , a n d s te ri liz e d .3

C hen corr obor at ed hi s cl ai m w i th abort i on and s t er i l i zat i on cert i fi cat es fr om the L angQ i heal th cl i ni c as w el l as t es t i m onyfr om D r . R obertC han Luangkhot , a doct orw ho ex am ined C h en in the U n it ed S tat es o n A u g u st 10 , 2 0 0 2 an d ag ain in 2 0 0 4 . D r. L uangkhott es t i fi ed thatC hen had unde r gone a va s ect om ythat

— bas ed on fa i ntnes s of the s car— had occ urr ed ar ound one y earbefor e the A ugus t2002 exami nat i on. T he I J gr ant ed C hen’ s cl ai m foras y l um buts t at ed thats he w oul d r eopen the ca s e i f the document at i on re g a rd in g th e s te ri liz a tio n a n d a b o rt io n w a s d e te rm in e d to b e f ra u d u le n t. T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s s u b se q u e n t in v e stig a tio n sh o w e d th a t th e L a n g Q i h e a lth c lin ic do cum ents w ere fr aud ulentand up on the g ov ernm ent’ s m oti on the IJ r eop ened the case on M ar ch 15, 2005. C hen di d notdi s put e thatthe document s w er e fr audul entbut att empt ed t o r ehabi l i t at e hi s cl ai m by su b m itt in g n e w d o c u m e n ts f ro m th e h e a lth c lin ic r epr es ent i ng thathe had be en s t er i l i zed on M ar ch 15, 1999 and thathi s w i fe ha d u n d e rg o n e a n a b o rtio n o n M a rc h 8 , 1 9 9 9 . C h e n a lso su b m itt e d a lette r f ro m h is w i fe— w ho r emai ns i n C hi na— s t at i ng that , beca us e s he l os tthe or i gi nal abort i on and s t er i l i zat i on cert i fi cat es , s he obt ai ned thos e i ni t i al l ys ubm i t t ed fr om a doct orforfi veh u n d red C h ines e d o ll ars. Sh e a sserted that sh e d id n o t kn o w the d o cu m en ts w ere f ra u d u le n t. O n A ugus t16, 2007, the I J deni ed C hen’ s r eques t s foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of rem o v al, an d C A T reli ef b u t gran ted h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r vo lun taryd ep arture. T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t C h e n ’s “ tes tim o n yre g a rd in g th e d a tes o f h is f o rc e d ste riliza tio n a n d h is4

w i fe’ s for ced a bor t i on go t o t he veryheartof hi s cl ai m . ” She not ed thatthe y earthat th e se e v e n ts o c c u rre d w a s d isp u ted u n til it w a s d isc o v e re d th a t th e o rig in a l d o c u m e n ts w ere fr aud ulent . T he IJ then reas on ed thati f t he 2 00 1 d at e w ere corr ect , then “[C hen ’s ] att empt t o expl ai n t he for ged document s i s fal s e and hi s cr edi bi l i tyhas been unde r m i ned n o t on lyb ysu b m itti n g fo rge d d o cu m en ts, b u t al so b yatt em p ti n g to ex p lai n w h ytheyare fr audul ent . ” I f, how ever , the expl anat i on of the for ged document s w as true and the s t er i l i zat i on and abort i on occurr ed i n 1999, then “[ C hen] r epea t edl ys t at ed the i ncorr ect y eari n w hi ch he w as s t er i l i zed, and the C our tfi nds i tunl i kel ythata man w ho w as for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i n t he mannerdes cr i bed . . . w oul d notr emem berthe y eari n w hi ch that tr a u m a tic e v e n t o c c u rr e d .” O n A ugus t29, 2008, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. I tconcl uded thatthe adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w as notcl ear l yerr oneous , agr eei ng thatthe C hen l acke d cr edi bi l i tybeca us e he ha d s ubm i t t ed fr audul entdocument s and not i ng thatthe r ehabi l i t at i ve evi dence confl i ct ed w i th hi s t es t i m onyas t o the dat e of the ac t s of persecut i on . S ee M at t er of O -D -, 21 I. & N . D ec. 10 79 (B IA 19 98 ). T he B IA al so d e ter m in e d th a t b e c a u se C h e n f a iled to m e e t th e b u rd e n n e c e ss a ryto e sta b lish e lig ib ili ty f o r a sy lu m , h e f

a iled to sa tisf

yth e h ig h e r sta n d a rd re q u ire d f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, and had notpr es ent ed anycr edi bl e evi dence es t abl i s hi ng thats om eone i n hi s s i tuat i on w o u ld b e to rtu re d u p o n h is re tu rn to C h in a . F in a lly , the B IA p e rm itt e d C h e n to v o lu n ta ri ly d e p a rt f

ro m th e U n ite d S ta te s . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c (b ).B ec au se C h en ap p li ed fo r reli ef b ef o re M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the R E A L ID A ct’s 1 sta n d a rd g o v e rn in g re v iew o f a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s is n o t ap p lica b le to th is ca se. S ee K ait a v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 2 2 F . 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 5 T hr ough couns el , C hen now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof re m o v a l. II W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). In th is c a se , w e re v iew th e d e c isio n s o f th e B IA a n d th e IJ. S e e X ie v . A sh c ro f t, 359 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he dec i s i ons ar e r evi ew ed underthe s ubs t ant i al ev iden ce stan d ard an d w il l be u p h eld “ u n less the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary concl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 471 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . Fur ther , an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng s houl d be “ba s ed upon i n c o n s i s t e n ts t a t e m e n t s , c o n tr a d i c t o ry e v i d e n c e s , a n d i n h e r e n t l y i m p r o b a b l e t e s t i m o n y” that g o to the h ea rto f th e a sy lum claim . M u d ri c v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 9 4 , 1 0 1 (3d C ir . 1 2 0 0 6 ). Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. See K ai t a, 522 F. 3d at296. C hen does notdi s put e thathe s ubm i t t ed fr audul entabort i on and s t er i l i zat i on cert i fi cat es i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m s . H e al s o fai l ed t o authent i cat e the s econd s etof ce r t i fi cat es . T he I J and B I A neverthel es s cons i der ed the new r ecor ds and appr opr i at el yconcl uded thatC hen’ s r ehabi l i t at i ve evi dence onl yr ai s ed more ques t i ons as t o hi s cr edi bi l i ty , and thatthe ques t i onabl e evi dence goes t o the hea r tof hi s cl ai m for6

as y l um . A ddi t i onal l y , beca us e the I J coul d have r es t ed the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng s ol el yon the s ubm i s s i on of the fr audul entdocument s , w e have no need t o cons i der C hen’ s ar gum ent s r el at i ng t o t he admi s s i on of hi s r ehabi l i t at i ve document s and the expl anat i on forthe i ncons i s t enci es betw een the document s . I n s um , the evi dence does no tcom pel us t o o verturn t he d eci si on t o d enythe p et i t i on er’ s cl ai m s. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e d e n yC h e n ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .