FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPT 06 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15827 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 70- 895- 480 X I A N G Y O N G W A N G , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 6, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d R O N E Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Of pa rticular note , Wang’ s asylum application listed a name, WangXing qi, and date of 1 birth, August 20, 1992, for his second child. 2 X i a ng Y ong W a ng, thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng w i thoutopi ni on the i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e’s ( “IJ” ) d en ial o f a sy lu m an d w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al. B as ed o n th e I J’s fi nd i ng s thatW ang’ s t es t i m on y w as no tcr edi bl e, a dec i si on un i qu el y the prov i nce o f th e tr ie ro f

f a c t, s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rts th e d e c is io n th a t W a n g f a ile d to m e e t h is b u r d e n o f

p r o o f o n h is v a r io u s c la im s f

o rr e lie f . T h e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w is d e n ie d . W a ng, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , a rr i ve d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 1993 w i tho uta val i d u nexp i re d i m m i grantvi saor other val i d entrydo cum entand w as d e ta in e d b y th e f

o rm e rI m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tu r a liz a tio n S e rv ic e ( “I N S ” ) . S ubs e que nt l y , W ang f

i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um ba s e d on hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, a lle g in g th a t h e w a s p e r s e c u te d f o rv io la tin g C h in a ’s b irth c o n tr o l p o lic y . S p e c if ic a lly , W a n g s ta te d th a t h e a n d h is w if e h a d to ru n a w a y f

r o m h o m e a f

te rh is w i fe beca m e pre gn antw i th thei r s ec on d chi l d, and thatw hen they r eturned “ [a ] ft er [thei r] se cond chi l d w as bo rn, ” thei r huthad b ee n d es troye d and they w er e ordere d 1 b y th e f a m ilyp la n n in g w o rk e r s to p a y af in e . W a n g c la im e d th a t th e f a m ily pl a nni ng w orke r s w a nt e d hi s w i f e t o be s t e r i l i z e d, butbe c aus e s he w a s i n poor3

heal th she coul d n othave the op er at i on , and there fore , the fa m i l y pl anni ng w orkers

“ w e r e f or c i ng [ W a ng] t o ha ve the s t e r i l i z a t i on ope r a t i on. ” T he r e a f t e r , W a ng al l egedl y f

l ed C hi na i n o rdert o avo i d b ei ng st er i l i ze d, and cam e t o the U ni t ed S ta te s . I n 1996, the I N S r e f

e rr e d W a ng’ s c a s e t o a n I J f orahe a r i ng on hi s a s y l um ap p lic a tio n a f

te rd e te rm in in g th a t h e d id n o t s u f f e rp a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rh a v e aw e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, a nd the r e f or e , ha d notm e thi s bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um . I n i t s a s s e s s m e nt/r e f e rr a l m e m or a ndum , the IN S sp eci fi cal l y fo u n d th at“ [n ] o seri o u s rep ri cu ssi o n s [si c] w ere t ak en ag ai n st [ W a ng’ s w i f

e ] by bi rth c ontr ol author i t i e s ” a f t e rs he r e f

us e d t o unde r go a s t e r i l i z a t i on, a nd tha ts he ha d c ont i nue d t o r e s i de a tthe s a m e a ddr e s s dur i ng the f oury e a r s f

ol l ow i ng the or i gi na l r e que s tw i thoute ve rbe i ng f or c i bl y s t e r i l i z e d. In 20 02 , W ang, w ho w as st i l l i n rem ov al proceedi ng s, fi l ed se vera l doc um e nt s i n s upportof hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, i nc l udi ng a n a f f i da vi ti n w hi c h he s ta te d th a t h e le f

t C h in ab e c au s e h e a n d h is w if e w e r e s u b

je c t to c o e r c iv e b irth c o n tr o l m e a s u r e s a g a in s t th e irw ill. I n 2004, W a ng appe a r e d be f or e a n I J f

orahe a r i ng on hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, a nd upon que s t i oni ng by the I J , W a ng’ s c ouns e l e xpl a i ne d tha tW a ng w as se eki ng as yl um base d o n a cl ai m thathi s w i fe w as forc ed t o u nd er go an4

abort i on, e ve n though thi s w a s notthe c l a i m i n the a s y l um appl i c a t i on. W a ng att em pt ed t o exp l ai n thi s i ncon si st encyby t es t i fy i ng thatthe peop l e w ho had pr e pa r e d hi s appl i c a t i on m a de am i s t a ke , a nd tha tno one ha d e ve rr e a d the ap p lic a tio n to h im b e f

o r e h e s ig n e d it. T h e I J d e n ie d W a n g ’s c la im s f o ra s y lu m , a f

te rm a k in g a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on, f

i ndi ng tha tW a ng f

a i l e d t o pr e s e ntc ons i s t e nta nd s uf f i c i e nt evi dence t o est abl i sh thathi s w i fe w as forc ed t o u nd er go an abort i on , gi ven that ( 1) hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on m a de no m e nt i on of a n abort i on, buti ns t e a d f oc us e d on the threa tof st er i l i za t i on ; (2) he never menti on ed an abort i on du ri ng hi s i ni t i al a i rporti nt e rvi e w w i th the I N S ; a nd ( 3) hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on pr ovi de d ana m e a nd d a te o f b irth f o rth e s e c o n d c h ild , a n d th e I J f o u n d th a t W a n g ’s e x p la n a tio n f o rth is w a s n o t b e lie v ab le . W a ng appe a l e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o the B I A , a nd the B I A a f f i rm e d w i thout o p in io n . I n h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w , W a n g a r g u e s th a th i s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd othe rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt (“ C A T ”) shou l d h ave been grant ed because (1) the IJerre d b y f ai l i ng t o con si der the r e c or d a s aw hol e ; and ( 2) he w a s de ni e d due pr oc e s s w he n the I J ba s e d the5

de ni a l of hi s c l a i m f

ora s y l um on i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n W a ng’ s t e s t i m ony a nd h is in itia l a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . W he n the B I A s um m a r i l y a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on w i thouta n opi ni on un der 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 1(e) (4), the IJ ’ s dec i si on beca m e the fi nal agency d e te rm in a tio n s ub

je c t to r e v ie w . Se e Me ndoz a v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1 2 8 4 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on, l i ke othe rf a c tua l f i ndi ngs , i s r e vi e w e d unde rthe s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd w e “ m a y nots ubs t i tut e [ our ] j udgm e ntf ortha tof the [I J] w i th res pectt o cre di bi l i ty f i nd i ng s. ” D -Muhum e d v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 388 F . 3d 814, 818 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ [ A ] n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on a l one m a y be suff i ci entt o sup po rtthe deni al of an as yl um appl i ca t i on , ” s o l on g as the IJoffe rs

“ s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons f

ora n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng” a nd doe s notove r l ook o th e re v id e n c e p r o d u c e d b y th e a s y lu m ap p lic a n t. For gue v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 401 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 20 05 ).

O n c e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g is m a d e , th e b u r d e n is o n th e ap p lic a n t a lie n to s h o w th a t th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility de c i s i on w a s nots upport e d by s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons or w a s n o t b a s e d o n s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on, l i ke a ny f a c tf i ndi ng, m a y notbe o v e rtu rn e d u n le s s th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls it. I d . ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .6

S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on thatW ang fai l ed t o m ee t hi s burden o f proof t o est abl i sh hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um , and n othi ng i n the re cord c o m p e ls u s to r e v e r s e th is f in d in g . Se e A de

fe m i v . A s h c r o

ft , 386 F . 3d 1022, 1027 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( e n banc ) , ce rt. deni ed , 12 5 S . C t . 22 45 (200 5). T he IJm ade an advers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on base d p ri m ar i l y on tw o m at er i al i ncon si st enci es be tw e e n W a ng’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on a nd hi s t e s t i m ony a tthe a s y l um he a r i ng, na m e l y w he the rW a ng’ s w i f e w a s f or c e d t o ha ve a n abort i on a nd w he the rW a ng w as everdet ai ned and beat en. B ec ause these cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s are s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d , a n d b e c au s e th e I J p r o p e r ly c ons i de r e d W a ng’ s c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e , w e a f f i rm the I J ’ s de ni a l of

a s y l um a nd d e n y th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w a s to th is is s u e . See D -M uh um ed , 3 8 8 F .3 d a t 8 1 8 . W e not e tha tthe r e i s no i ndi c a t i on i n the r e c or d tha tthe I J f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe e n tir e r e c o r d , o rth a t W a n g w a s d e n ie d af a irh e a r in g . A s t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , an al i en i s e nt i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al unde rthe I N A i f

he ors he c a n “ s how tha thi s [ orhe r ] l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be threa t ened on ac coun tof ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar soci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” Men do za , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ; s e e al s o I NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . A s ag e n e r a l ru le , h o w e v e r , if “a n ap p lic a n t is u n ab le to m e e t th e ‘w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r ’ s ta n d ar d f

o ra s y lu m , h e is g e n e r a lly7

p r e c lu d e d f

r o m q u a lif

y in g f o re ith e ra s y lu m o rw ith h o ld in g o f d e p o rta tio n .” Al N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 92 -93 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). B e c aus e W a ng f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof p e r s e c u tio n s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt h is a s y lu m c la im , h e c a n n o t e s tab lis h th a t h e is e l i g i b l e f o rwi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I NA . W ang al so pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the deni al of hi s c l ai m for prot ec t i on un der the C A T . B ec ause W ang d i d n otexhausthi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es w i th res pect t o thi s c l a i m , w e hol d tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w thi s c l a i m , a nd di s m i s s the p e titio n in p a rt. See I N A § 2 4 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; Ferna ndez -B erna l v. A t t ’ yG e n. , 25 7 F . 3d 13 04 , 13 17 n. 13 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). PETI TI O N D EN I ED in p a rt, D I SM I SSED in p a rt.