2006 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 3-10-2006 

# Zhe ng 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 . 05-2006

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_2006

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 2006 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
" Zhe n g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1455. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1455NOT 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. 05- 2006 L ONG MI NG Z HE NG, Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent PETI TI O N FO R R EV I EW O F A D EC I SI O N O F THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

A gencyN o. A 77- 281- 447 Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February10, 2006 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, B A R R Y and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 10, 2006 )

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge L ong M i ng Z heng, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na,2

pet i t i ons t hi s C our tforr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I. P e t i t i o n e r ’ s t e s t i mo n yb e f o r e th e I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) wa s a s f o l l o ws . He m arr i ed X i u Y u C hen i n D ece m berof 1987, and the coupl e had a daught eron D ece m ber 2 , 1 9 8 8 . B e c a u se h e a n d h is w if e w e re u n d e ra g e a t th e tim e o f th e ir w e d d in g , the c o u p le d id n o t re g iste r th e ir m a rria g e u n til M a y2 7 , 1 9 9 1 . O n Ja n u a ry1 0 , 1 9 8 9 , loc a l f a m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s i nform ed them t hatM s . C hen w as r equi r ed t o have a n i ntr aut er i ne devi ce ( “I U D ”) i m pl ant ed w i t hi n t hr ee da y s , and t o r epor tforquar t er l yI U D chec ks ther eaf t er . M s . C hen i gnor ed the not i ce a nd, on J anuary16, 1989, offi ci al s arr es t ed her a n d f o rc e d h e r t o h a v e a n IU D im p la n te d . I n J une 1990, M s . C hen di s cover ed thatthe I U D had fa l l en outand thats he w as p re g n a n t. Z h e n g to o k h e r to h e r m o th e r’s h o m e in o rd e r to e sc a p e f ro m th e f a m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s . She r etur ned home short l ybefor e gi vi ng bi r t h t o a s on on M ar ch 21, 1 9 9 1 . T h e f

o llo w in g m o n th , fa m ilyp lan n in g o f f icia ls p a id th e c o u p le a n o th e r v isit, t aki ng M s . C hen aw ayforan I U D i ns ert i on and or der i ng hert o r epor tforr egul ar chec kups . N eart he end of M ay1991, the coupl e r egi s t er ed thei rm arr i age s o t hatthey c o u l d r e g i s t e rt h e b i r t h o f t h e i rs o n . Th e ya p p a r e n t l ywe r e f o r c e d t o p a ya 1 , 0 0 0 RM B fi ne fo r vi olat i ng t he g ov ernm ent’ s fam i l yplanni ng po l i ci es. In M a y1 9 9 5 , M s. C h e n w a s in f o rm e d th a t sh e w a s p re g n a n t ag a in . S h e w e n t in toT he I N S ceas ed t o exi s tas of M ar ch 1, 2003. I t s funct i ons w er e tr ans ferr ed t o t he 1 D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y . See 6 U . S. C . § 271. 3 h id in g , “[ s]o m e tim e s in f rie n d ’s h o m e , so m e tim e s in re lativ e ’s h o m e , so m e tim e a lso in h e r m o m ’s h o m e .” (J A 1 0 3 ) Z h e n g tes tifie d th a t h is m o th e r-in -la w m o v e d in w ith h im t o h e l p c a r e f

o rt h e t wo c h i l d r e n . Al t h o u g h i n h i d i n g , M s . Ch e n wo u l d r e tu r n h o me occa s i onal l yt o vi s i therchi l dr en. O n one s uch occ as i on, the ni ghtof A ugus t12, 1995, fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s came t o t hei rhom e t o i nqui r e i nt o w hyM s . C hen had mi s s ed her l at es tI U D chec kup. T heydi s cover ed thats he w as agai n pr egnantand t ook hert o a hos pi t al fora for ced a bor t i on. T w o day s l at er , s he w as for ci bl ys t er i l i zed. A ppr oxi m at el yfoury ear s l at er , on Sept ember26, 1999, Z heng arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es atL os A ngel es I nt ernat i onal A i rpor t( “LA X ”) . T he I m m i gr at i on and N a tu ra liz a tio n S e rv ic e (“ IN S ” ) p la c e d h im in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s o n O c to b e r 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 . 1 H e a p p li ed fo r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al on M arc h 6 , 2 0 0 0 an d , af ter a N o v e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 1 h e a ri n g , h is a p p lic a tio n w a s d e n ie d . I n hi s or al opi ni on, t he I J found thatZ heng “ha d m emori zed hi s t es t i m onyand w hen anyqu est i on s w ere as ked of h i m ou tof seq uen ce, he h ad tr ou ble i n an sw eri ng t ho se acc ur at el y . ” ( J A 35) T he I J bel i eved, forexampl e, thatZ heng gave confus ed t es t i m ony r e g a r d i n g t h e d a t e t h e f a mi l yp l a n n i n g o f

f i c i a l s c a me t o f

o r c e h i s wi f

e t o h a v e a n I UD i ns er t ed af

t ert he bi r t h of thei rfi r s tchi l d, atone t i m e s ay i ng i toccurr ed a mont h aft ert he J anuary10, 1989 vi s i t , atanotheron O ct ober16, 1989, and onl yaft ers om e ques t i oni ng4

di d he t es t i fyt o J anuary16, 1989, t he dat e pr ovi ded i n hi s aff i davi t . T he I J al s o found thatZ heng gave confl i ct i ng t es t i m onyr egar di ng the dat e on w hi ch he w as fi ned 1000 R M B . M o re o v e r, th e IJ d e e m e d it i n c re d ib le th a t Z h e n g ’s w if e w o u ld re tu rn h o m e to vi s i therchi l dr en dur i ng hert hi r d pr egnanc y , ther ebyr i s ki ng det ect i on, and thatthe c h ild re n w o u ld n o t h a v e m o v e d to th e m o th e r-in -la w ’s h o u se , w h e re th e yc o u ld b e w ith thei rm otheroutof s i ghtof the vi l l age of fi ci al s . T he I J al s o bas ed hi s deci s i on i n parton th e d isp a rityb e tw e e n th e in f o rm a tio n Z h e n g p ro v id e d to im m ig ra tio n o f f icia ls u p o n h is arrival at L A X an d h is t esti m o n yat th e h ea ri n g . F inally , the IJ d eterm ined that Z h en g ’s t es t i m onyw as an “obvi ous fabr i cat i on” and, acc or di ngl y , found thathe had “ fi l ed a frivo lou s ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum . ” P eti ti o n er a p p ea led, an d the B IA af firm ed the IJ’s deci s i on on J ul y25, 2003. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval . W her e, as her e, t he B I A aff i r m s an or derof r emoval w i t houta s ubs t ant i ve o p in io n , w e re v ie w th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 );
se e A b d u la i v. A sh c ro

ft , 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 n .2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ W h e n th e B IA d e f e rs to an IJ, a revi ew i ng cou rtm ust , as a m at t er of l og i c, revi ew the IJ' s deci si on t o assess w hetherthe B I A ' s deci s i on t o defe rw as appr opr i at e. ”) . I f the fa ctual fi ndi ngs , i ncl udi ng adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons , under l y i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on ar e s uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , th e ym u s t b e u p h e ld . See G ao , 299 F. 3d a t 2 7 2 ; X ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 359W e nee d not , how ever , acc eptfi ndi ngs not“s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and 2 pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U . S. at 4 8 1 ; G u o v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e not e thats ect i on 101( a) ( 3) of the R eal I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 3 St at . 305, aff

ect s an al i en pet i t i oner ’ s bur den of pr oof i n t hi s r eal m . Z heng’ s pet i t i on, how ever , pr edat es t he ef fec t i ve dat e of the s t atut e. C ons equent l y , w e appl ythe “ol d” l aw t o the I J ’ s deci s i on. 5 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . O nl yi f “‘ no r eas onabl e per s on’ w oul d have f ound t he 2 appl i canti ncr edi bl e, ” C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), m aythe IJ’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n b e u p s e t. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); IN S v. E l i asZacar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 n. 1 ( 1992) ( “To re ver s e the B I A fi ndi ng w e mustfi nd that th e e v i d e n c e n o to n l y su p p o rts th a t co n c lu sio n , b u t c o m p e ls it . . . .”) ( e m p h a sis in or i gi nal ) . N evert hel es s , an I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on m us tbe bas ed on e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd a n d m a yn o t r e s t m e re ly o n s p e c u la tio n . See G ao , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 7 2 . T hati s , an I J m us tbas e an a dver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on on “s peci fi c[, ] cogent r eas ons , ” i d. at276, s uch as “i ncons i s t ents t at ement s , contr adi ct oryevi dence , and i nher ent l yi m pr obabl e t es t i m ony . ” D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (cit ati o n an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 3 III . Z h e n g h a d “ th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f to e s ta b lis h h is . . . e lig ib ility f o r a s y lu m .” C hen , 376 F. 3d at223. “The al i en musts how bycr edi bl e, di r ect , and s peci fi c evi dence an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s fort he cl ai m ed fe arof per s ecut i on. ” I d. I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on, Z heng cont ended i n hi s aff i davi tthaton J anuary10,6

1 9 8 9 , h is w if

e w a s n o tifie d th a t sh e w o u ld h a v e to re p o rt f o r a n IU D in se rtio n w ith in thr ee da y s . B eca us e s he di d notcompl y , the off i ci al s for ced he rt o have the I U D i ns er t ed o n Jan u ary1 6 , 1 9 8 9 . (JA 1 3 0 ) W h en rec o u n ti n g thes e e v en ts atthe h ea ri n g , h o w ev er, Z heng t es t i fi ed as fol l ow s r egar di ng t he J anuary10 not i fi cat i on and hi s w i fe’ s deci s i on n o tt o c o m p l y: [Zheng] : T hen on O ct ober16, 1989, ther e w as fourt o fi ve fa m i l ypl anni ng offi cercame agai n. Q : C an y ou t el l t he C our tagai n w hi ch mont hs of 1989? [I J ] : O ct ober16, 1989, he s ai d. [Z h en g ’s C o u n sel]: S o that’s l ike 1 0 m o n ths a fter? [Z hen g]: T here i s onlyon e m on t h in bet w een tw o v i si t s. *** [I J ] : . . . . Y ou s ai d t haton O ct ober16, 1989, fourorfi ve fa m i l ypl anni ng offi cer s and then y ourat t or neycuty ou off. A : Y es. Q : W hathappene d on O ct ober16, 1089? A : T heycame t o ourhom e, arr es tm yw i fe, for ce he rt o have I U D i ns ert i on. Q : N o w I’ll g e t b a c k to m yp o in t o f c o n f u sio n . Y o u to ld m e a lso th a t a m on t h h ad p assed betw een the t w o v i si t s fr om the b i rth co ntr ol offi ci al s? A : I don’ tunder s t and w hyy ou s ay1989. T hat ’ s w hyI w as confus ed t oo. Q : W el l di d i thappen i n 1989? A : Y e a h , this o c c u r in 1 9 8 9 . Y e a h , rig h t. Q : O ct ober16t h, ‘ 89? A : Y es. Q : So w hen y ou, w el l w hydi d y ou t el l m e then thata mont h pas s ed betw een the t w o v i si t s of t he b i rth co ntr ol offi ci al s? A : N ot , I ’ m , O ct ober . Fi r s tcame on J anuary10th. Q : R i ght . A nd t he s econd t i m e? A : Second t i m e w as O ct ober16. Q : E i ght y - ni ne? A : Y es , ‘ 89. Q : A ll righ t. *** [Zheng’ s C ouns el ] : O kay . Y ou, w hen w as the fi r s tt i m e y ou gotnot i ce f r o m th e f a mi l yp l a n n i n g o f

f i c e t o o r d e ry o u rwi f

e t o h a v e a n I UDT he “one m ont h” t es t i m onym ayhave be en bas ed on Zheng’ s confus i on betw een the 4 e v e n ts o f 1 9 8 9 a n d th o s e o f

1 9 9 1 . ( See J A 130)

7 i ns ert i on? [Zheng] : Fi r s tt i m e w as J anuary10. Second t i m e w as J anuary16. T hen theyarr es thert o have I U D i ns ert i on. [I J ] : So i t ’ s notO ct ober16t h thaty ou’ ve bee n t el l i ng m e? A : Y es , O ct ober16t h. N o, J anuary16th. Q: Do y o u k n o w wh a ty o u ’ r e t a l k i n g a b o u t , s i r ? Yo u ’ r e g e t t i n g me compl et el yconfus ed. Y ou keep c hangi ng y ourdat es her e. A : I’ m verynervou s. Q : W el l I can unde r s t and that , butw hat , the s econd t i m e theycame, w hen w a s th a t? A : J anuary16, 1989. ( J A9 1 - 9 3 . ) Ba s e d o n t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c yb e t we e n th i s t e s t i mo n ya n d Z h e n g ’ s a f f i d a v i t , we 4 cannots ayt hat“‘ no r eas onabl e per s on’ w oul d have f ound t he appl i canti ncr edi bl e. ” C hen , 376 F. 3d at222. Z heng’ s i ncons i s t ents t at ement s r egar di ng the chr onol ogyof even t s surround i ng a m at eri al i ssue provided a suff i ci ent basi s for the IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. T he I J al s o found thatZ heng gave confl i ct i ng t es t i m onyr egar di ng the dat e on w hi ch he w as fi ned 1000 R M B . T he fi ne w as appar ent l yi m pos ed s om et i m e af t erthe b irth o f h is s e c o n d c h ild in M a rc h 1 9 9 1 . Z h e n g tes tifie d th a t in A p ril 1 9 9 1 , fa m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s “aga i n . . . came t o ourhous e and then dr agged myw i fe” off t o t he h o sp ital to h a v e a n IU D in se rte d . (JA 9 9 -1 0 0 ) Z h e n g sta ted th a t th e o f f icia ls th e n to ld th e m th e yw o u ld h a v e to p a ya 1 0 0 0 R M B f in e f o r v io la tin g th e f

a m ily p la n n in g p o lic y . ( J A9 9 ) I ti s n o te n t i r e l yc l e a ri f Zh e n g me a n tth a tth e ywe r e t o l d o f th e f i n e a tth e t i me8

hi s w i fe w as for ced t o have the I U D i ns ert ed i n A pr i l 1991, ors om et i m e ther eaf t er . A ft er f u r th e rq u e s t i o n i n g f

r o m h i s c o u n s e l , h e t e s t i f i e d : “ As I me n t i o n e d , a f t e rth e I UD in se rtio n , w h e n w e w e n t to re g iste r th e se c o n d c h ild a n d w e w e re to ld w e a lre a d yv io late the f am il yp lann ing p o li cy , there fo re, th eyg ive u s a f ine f o r 1,00 0 R M B . ” (JA 1 0 0 ) Z heng t es t i fi ed thataft ert heypai d the fi ne, theyw er e perm i t t ed t o r egi s t erthei rs econd c h i l d . Hi s c o u n s e l t h e n i n q u i r e d o f h i m: Q . B e f o r e yo u c o u l d r e g i s t e ryo u rs e c o n d c h i l d i n yo u rh o u s e h o l d r e g i s t r y, i s ther e anyt hi ng el s e y ou have t o do? A : B efor e w e w entt o r egi s t er , fi r s ttheycome t o arr es tm yw i fe a nd then f o rc e h e r to h a v e IU D in se rt. T h e n th e ytell m yw if e sh e ’s n o t allo w e d to h a v e a n ym o re c h ild . If sh e e v e r h a v e a n ym o re c h ild , the ya re g o in g to steri li ze d h er. ( J A 101) Z heng dat es t he r egi s t r yof the s econd c hi l d as M ay27, 1991, the dayon w hi ch he al s o cont ends t heypai d t he 1, 000 R M B . ( J A 101- 02) T h e I J s u m m a r i z e d t h i s t e s t i m o n y w h e n a s s e s s i n g Z h e n g ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y: T h e re sp o n d e n t . . . tes tifie d th a t in th e e n d o f A p ril 1 9 9 1 , ca d re s c a m e to hi s w i fe’ s hom e and t ook hert o t he vi l l age hos pi t al . H e s t at es thatatthat t i m e an I U D w as i ns ert ed i n hi s w i fe a nd thathe and hi s w i fe w er e fi ned 1, 000 R M B . . . . T he r es pondentthen cha nged the t es t i m onyand s t at ed that w hen he w entt o r egi s t erhi s s econd c hi l d w as the t i m e thathe and hi s w i fe w er e fi ned the 1, 000 R M B . N atur al l ythi s contr adi ct s the r es pondent p re v io u s ly sta tin g th a t th e f in e w a s le v ie d a t th e tim e th e IU D w a s in s e rt e d . T he C ou rtal so no t es that the af fi dav i tsubm i t t ed b ythe respon den tgives a di ffe r entr endi t i on and s t at es thathe w as fi ned the thous and R M B on M ay 27, 1991, w hen theyw entt o r egi s t erthei rm arr i age. C ons equent l y , the C o u rt w ith in a sh o rt p e rio d o f tim e h a s h e a rd th re e d if f e re n t re n d iti o n s a s to w h e n th e f

in e w a s le v ie d a g a in s t th e re s p o n d e n t . . . . (JA 3 7 )9

I ti s notent i r el ycl eart hatZ heng t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s w i fe w er e fi ned atthe tim e o f th e A p ril 1 9 9 1 IU D in se rtio n . H e tes tifie d th a t af ter th e in se rtio n , the o f

f icia ls then t ol d them t heyhad vi ol at ed the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cyand w oul d be s ubj ect ed t o a f in e . (JA 9 9 ) H e th e n sta ted th a t th e f in e w a s im p o se d a t th e tim e o f re g iste rin g h is se c o n d c h ild , M a y2 7 , 1 9 9 1 , the d a te, a c c o rd in g to h is a f f id a v it, h e a n d h is w if

e “ w e n t to have [ thei r ] m arr i age r egi s t er ed fort he purpos e of r egi s t er i ng [thei r ] s econd c hi l d. ” (JA 1 3 1 ) T o u s, h is a c c o u n t – th a t th e IU D w a s in se rte d in A p ril 1 9 9 1 a n d th a t, th e re a f ter , in M a y1 9 9 1 th e yw e n t to re g iste r th e ir m a rria g e in o rd e r to re g iste r th e ir s econd c hi l d, onl yt o be fi ned – i s cert ai nl ycons i s t entw i t h t he document aryr ecor d and o n e re a s o n a b le re a d in g o f th e h e a ri n g te s tim o n y . N e v e rt h e le s s , Z h e n g ’s te s tim o n yc a n b e re a d to s ta te a n A p ri l 1 9 9 1 f in e . ( See J A9 9 ( “ T h e yt o o k h e rt o v i l l a g e h o s p i t a l [ i n l a t e Ap r i l 1 9 9 1 ] . T h e n th e yt o l d h e ra n d we have tw o chi l dr en w hi ch i s al r eadyvi ol at e the governm entpol i cyal l ow ed. T her efor e, theygi ve us a fi ne for1, 000 R M B . ”) . ) M or eover , Z heng fa i l ed t o m ent i on anyt hi ng about the mar r i age r egi s t r yi n des cr i bi ng the eve nt s of M ay27, 1991, des pi t e the oppor tuni t i es pr ovi ded byhi s couns el ’ s ques t i ons , s uch as , “w as ther e anyt hi ng el s e y ou di d on that d a y ? ” In s h o rt , th e re c o rd d o e s n o t c o m p e l a c o n tr a ry f in d in g to th a t o f

th e IJ . 8 U .S .C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “[T] he admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s any rea so n ab le ad

jud icator w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ”). Z h e n g ’s te stim o n yth e n tu rn e d to th e e v e n ts s u rro u n d in g th e b irth o f h is th ird c h ild10

in 1 9 9 5 . T h e IJ d id n o t cr e d it h is a c c o u n t: [T]he C ourtdoubt s t hatt he r es pondent ’ s w i fe w oul d r eturn hom e w her e s he m igh t be a rrested b ythe c ad res. A lso itm ak es n o sen se f o r th e w ife’s m othert o be w at chi ng t he chi l dr en atthe r es pondent ’ s hom e r atherthan at the mot her ’ s hom e w her e theyw oul d be fr ee f r om the obs ervat i on of the cadr es and al s o w oul d be i n t he s ame l ocat i on w her e the r es pondent ’ s w i fe w as l i vi ng. A gai n, t hi s par t i cul arpartof hi s t es t i m onyw as notpl aus i bl e. (JA 3 8 ) O n th e se p o in ts, th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n is n o t su p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd , an d h is d is m is s a l o f

th e te s tim o n ya s im p la u s ib le is b a s e d o n n o th in g m o re th a n s p e c u la tio n . T he I J al s o bas ed hi s deci s i on i n par ton t he di s par i t ybetw een the i nform at i on Z heng pr ovi ded t o i m m i gr at i on offi ci al s upon arr i val atL A X and hi s t es t i m onyatthe h e a r i n g . “ [ W] e h a v e c o u n s e l e d a g a i n s tp l a c i n g t o o mu c h we i g h to n a n a i rp o r ti n t e r v i e w, es peci al l yw hen the I J and B I A l ack i m por t anti nform at i on as t o t he manneri n w hi ch the interview w as c o n d u cted , ” a n d “a lso h av e m ad e c lear tha t am b igu o u s an sw ers a t ai rpo rt i nt ervi ew s s houl d notbe r el i ed upon t o ques t i on the cr edi bi l i t yof the al i en l at er . ” C hen , 3 7 6 F .3 d a t 2 2 3 -2 4 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h a t h a v in g b e e n sa id , an IJ is n o t re q u ire d to i gnor e mat er i al di s cr epanc i es betw een the ac counta pet i t i onergi ves upon arr i vi ng i n the c o u n tr ya n d th e a c c o u n t p re s e n te d in p re s s in g a n a s y lu m c la im . Id
. at224 ( “[W ] her e the di s cr epanc i es betw een a n ai rpor ti nt ervi ew and the al i en’ s t es t i m ony‘ go t o t he hea r tof the cl ai m , ’ t heycert ai nl ys uppor tan adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. ”) . H er e, Z heng m ad e n o m en ti o n o f h is w ife’s d ifficu lt ies w ith the f am il yp lann ing o ff

ici als i n h is ai rpo rt i n t e r v i e w. Z heng expl ai ned thatom i s s i on bys ay i ng, as s um m ar i zed bythe I J , “thathe di d notT he I J excl uded a numberof exhi bi t s pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 287. 6( b) ( 1) - ( 2) , w hi ch 5 sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt: I n an y p roceedi ng undert hi s chapt er , an off i ci al r ecor d orentr yt her ei n, w hen admi s s i bl e foranypurpos e, sh all be evi dence d byan off i ci al publ i cat i on ther eof, orbya copyat t es t ed byan off i cers o author i zed. . . . T he 11 k n o w a n yth in g a b o u t as y lu m u p o n h is c o m in g to th e U n ited S tate s, n o r th a t h e w o u ld have t o m ent i on t hathe w as per s ecut ed i n or dert o be al l ow ed t o s t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” ( J A 40) T he I J found i t“extr emel ydi ffi cul t. . . t o bel i eve thatanyper s on comi ng fr om C hi na t o t he U ni t ed St at es does notknow aboutas y l um and does notknow how t o go aboutobt ai ni ng as y l um . ” (I d. ) W e know of no s uppor tforanypr es um pt i on thatas y l um appl i cant s know “how t o go aboutobt ai ni ng as y l um ” upon arr i vi ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es . C ons equent l y , w e do notdeem Z heng’ s om i s s i on t o cons t i tut e a d isc re p a n c yg o in g to th e “ h e a rt o f h is c laim ,” a n d d o n o t b e liev e it su f f icie n t o n its o w n to u n d e rl ie a n a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . Cf
. Ba l a s u b r a ma n r i m v . I

NS , 143 F. 3d 1 5 7 , 1 6 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (“T h at th ere w ere so m e inc o n sist en cies b etw ee n the a irp o rt sta tem e n t an d [ th e p e tit io n e r’s ] te stim o n yb e f o re th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e is n o t su f f icie n t, s ta n d in g a lo n e , to s u p p o rt th e B o a rd ' s f in d in g th a t [ th e p e titio n e r] w a s n o t c re d ib le .” ). T he I J di d not , how ever , r el yexcl us i vel yon s pecul at i ve fi ndi ngs r egar di ng the e v e n ts s u rr o u n d in g th e 1 9 9 5 p re g n a n c ya n d th e a irp o rt in te rv ie w . T h e re f o re , “ [ w ]h ile . . . w e ar e tr oubl ed bys om e of the s pecul at i ve s t at ement s the I J . . . m ade, aft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d as a w hol e w e ar e convi nced thatthe r ecor d evi dence does notcompel us t o r eac h a conc l us i on contr aryt o t hatof the I J . . . . ” C hen , 376 F. 3d at223. 5at t es t ed copy , w i t h t he addi t i onal for ei gn cert i fi cat es i f any , m us tbe ce r t i fi ed

byan off

i ceri n t he For ei gn Ser vi ce of the U ni t ed St at es , s t at i oned i n the f o re ig n c o u n tryw h e re th e re c o rd is k e p t. ( See J A 72- 76. ) W e hel d i n L iu v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 2 F .3 d 5 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), th a t § 2 8 7 .6 “ is notan abs ol ut e rul e of e xcl us i on, and i s notthe exc l us i ve means of authent i cat i ng r ecor ds befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge. ” Id . at533. T he I J her e, as i n L iu , s houl d have pr ovi ded an o p p o rt u n ity to p ro v e th e a u th e n tic ity o f th e d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e th ro u g h o th e r m e a n s . Id
. W e not e thatt he I J ’ s deci s i on pr edat ed ourdeci s i on i n L iu ; nonethel es s , the ar gum ent w as notr ai s ed t o us norw as i texhaus t ed bef or e the B I A . W e ar e, ther efor e, not p e rm itte d to re a c h it. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( “A cour tm ayr evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval onl yi f – ( 1) t he al i en has exhaus t ed al l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e t o t he al i en as of r i ght , and ( 2) anothercour thas notdeci ded the val i di t yof the or der , unl es s t he r evi ew i ng cour tfi nds t hatt he pet i t i on pr es ent s gr ounds thatcoul d nothave be en pr es ent ed i n t he pr i orj udi ci al pr ocee di ng orthatthe r emedypr ovi ded bythe pr i or p roc ee d ing w as in ad eq u ate o r i n ef fe cti v e to test th e v ali d ityo f th e o rde r. ”). T he I J concl uded thatZ heng’ s pet i t i on w as fr i vol ous . ( J A 43 ( “D ue t o t he obvi ous 6 fabr i cat i on of the r es pondent ’ s t es t i m ony , the C our tfi nds thatthe r es pondenthas fi l ed a f r i v o l o u s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m . ” ) ) P e t i t i o n e rh a s n e v e rc h a l l e n g e d th i s f i n d i n g . We c o n s e q u e n tly d o n o t r e a c h it. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d). 12 I V. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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. 6