2004 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
8-4-2004 

# C he n v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3185

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C he n v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 418. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/418NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 03-3185

____________ YONG ZHEN CH EN, Petitioner

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTOR NEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES,

Respondent

____________ On Petiti on for Review from an Ord er of th e Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (Board No. A77-322-686)

____________ Argued July

13, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , BA RR Y a nd F ISH ER , Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: August 4, 2004) Marco Pignone, II I (Argued) Wilson & Pignone 117 South 17 th Street , Suit e 908 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneyfor Peti tioner2

Matthew L. Zabel (Argued) United Stat es Department of Justi ce Appellat e Secti on 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4632 Washington, DC 20530 Dou glas E. G insburg John D. Wil li ams Terri J . Scadron R ob bi n K . B laya United Stat es Department of Justi ce Office of Immigration Lit igati on P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin St ation Washington, DC 20044 Attorney s for Responde nt

____________

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________ FIS HE R, Circuit

Judge
. Petition er Y ong Zhe n C hen a ppea ls the or der o f the B oard of Im migra tion A ppea ls (“BIA”) deny ing his applic ations for asy lum, withholding of de portation, and reli ef under the Conventi on Against Tort ure. Becaus e the BIA’s or der was support ed by s ubstant ial
ev id en ce , w e wi lldi smi ss th e p et itio n f orre vi ew. Chen was engaged and the woman became pregnant. The couple had not undergone a traditional Chi nese wedding cer emony, and even if t hey had, could not register a tradition al ma rriage b ecau se the w om an w as un derag e und er Ch ina’s b irth controlpolicy . She was subsequently ordered t o have an abort ion by Chinese bir

th-3

controloffici als. When official s arrived to escor t the woman to t

he aborti on, Chen tr ied to prev ent the m fro m en tering th eir hom e. He wa s surro und ed an d bea ten w hile his fian cee wa s dra gge d fr om the b edr oom and kick ed. S he b led a nd s uffered a m isca rriag e. The next day , Chen complai ned to offi cial s that they had kill ed his baby . He was detai ned at the polic e station, handcuffed to a window frame, slapped, and knocked unconscious . Two days l ater, he was relea sed on bail . Offici als t hreate ned to order

Chen to re turn to th e s tati on a t anyti me, andth athe wo ul d have t o paya fine. Offi ci al s c ame to Ch en’s h om e “m any time s” an d said his “w ife” c ould not live with him. C hen c ould not pay a fine and offi cial s removed proper ty from his home when he tr ied to l eave China. The immigrat ion judge de nied Chen’s appl icat ions for asy lum, withholding of deportation, and reli ef under the Convention Agains t Tortur e. The BIA affirmed, findi ng th at C he n “ fa ile d t o s ho w th at h e o r h is s po us e h as be en fo rc ed to ab or t a p re gn an cy, forced t o undergo involuntary ster ili zati on, or per secuted f or resi stance to a coerci ve pop ul at io n c ont

ro l p ro gr am. ” Ch en fi le d a ti mel ype ti ti on f orre vi ew. To obtain reversal, Chen “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelli ng that no r easonable factfi nder could f ail to find the requis ite f ear of persecut ion.” INS v. Elia s-Zacari as , 5 02 U .S . 4 78, 483 -8 4 ( 199 2) . A lt hou gh w e sympat hize with Chen and do not condone his treat ment at t he hands of the birt

h-contr ol offici als, the BIA’s fi nding that Chen did not warrant asylum is s upported by substantial evid enc e. See Pr as adv. INS , 47 F .3d 33 6 (9th Cir. 19 95) (n o pas t perse cution desp ite1 Nor is pet iti oner aide d by t he Ninth Circ uit’ s recent decisi on in Ma v. Ashcroft , where the Court ove rtur

ned a BIA order deny ing asylum to a man whose tr aditi onal marri age cou ld n ot b e officia lly regis tered
. 361 F.3d 553 (9th C ir. 2004 ). Tha t decisio n is in ap po sit e a s C he n w as un m ar rie d, e ith er offic ial ly o r tr ad itio na lly. 4 custo dial be ating); Kap ci a v . I NS , 944 F .2d 70 2 (10 th Cir. 1 991 ) (asylum denie d des pite repeated tw o-day detentions w here petitioner w as interrogated an d beaten). Alternatively , Chen argues t hat he may

bootstrap his asy lum appli cati on through the nat ure of his relationshi p with his fiancee. As support, he cit es to t he BIA’s decis ion of In re C-Y -Z , 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997), where the BIA held that the spouse of a
wo man wh o un derw ent an invo luntary steriliza tion m erited a sylum. C hen a sks tha t C-Y
Z be extended t o non-marri ed adult s who were legally pr ohibit ed from offici ally marry ing due to the m inimu m ag e requ ireme nts of Ch ina’s b irth con trol polic y. We d ecline to extend C-Y -Z , because the pla in langua ge of the defi niti on of “refugee” r equires an indivi dualiz ed analy sis of t he all eged persec ution. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a )(42). To the extent that C-Y -Z takes a c ategori cal appr oach regar ding spouses , that approac h should not be extended t o the curr ent cont ext, and the BIA does not urge us to hol d otherwis e. As the BIA’s conclusi ons regar ding Chen’s experiences were supporte d by subs tanti al evi dence,
we may not

subs ti tute our

vi ew f orth at of th e BI A. 1 We have considered Chen’ s remaining arguments and f ind them t o be without
mer it . A cc or di ngly , t

he pe ti ti on f

orre vi ew wi llbe DENI ED.