2009 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 9-3-2009 

# Zhou 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 . 07-4621

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Zhou v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 714. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/7141 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. 07- 4621

_________ L I QI N Z HOU, P eti ti o n er. v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, 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 77 998 275) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d V . F erl i se

_____________________________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J une 11, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember3, 2009)

_________ O P I N I O N

_________ P E R C UR I AM L i Q in Z h o u , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f C h in a , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in A p ril2

2002. She appea r ed bef or e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) and conc eded thats he w as re m o v a b le f

o r e n ter in g w ith o u t a v a lid e n tryd o c u m e n t. S e e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct( “I N A ”) § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) [8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) ] . Z hou appl i ed for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) , on t he gr ound t hats he s uffe r ed per s ecut i on i n C hi na as a Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner . I n par t i cul ar , Z hou cl ai m ed thats he pr act i ced Fal un G ong forone mont h – a tten d in g o n e o r tw o m e e tin g s a n d h a n d in g o u t f liers – b e f

o re th e p ra c tice w a s o f

f icia lly banned. Fear i ng arr es t , Z hou w entt o l i ve w i t h a fr i end i n anothert ow n. T he author i t i es came t o herpar ent s ’ hom e and, beca us e theyw er e unabl e t o l ocat e Zhou, det ai ned and “mi s t r eat ed” he rfatherforfourm ont hs . T he I J deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng Z hou’ s al l egat i ons notcr edi bl e bec aus e of i m pl aus i bi l i t i es and i ncons i s t enci es i n herai rpor ts t at ement , her cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew , heras y l um aff i davi t , and hert es t i m ony . T he I J al s o concl uded t hatZ hou coul d s afe l yr el ocat e i n C hi na and f aul t ed herforfai l i ng t o pr ovi de corr obor at i ng evi dence . T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed w i t hout opi ni on. Z hou fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew i n t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Second C i r cui t . B yor derent er ed N ovember27, 2007, t he Second Ci r cui tt r ans ferr ed the p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w t o t h i s Co u r t . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e rI NA § 2 4 2 [ 8 U. S . C. § 1252] . B eca us e the B I A aff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the I J w i t houtopi ni on, w e exa m i ne th e d e c is io n o f

th e IJ . S e e P a rt yk a v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 1 7 F .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W eT he pr ovi s i ons of the R eal I D A ctof 2005 thataddr es s t he C our t ’ s r evi ew of an 1 ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing d o n o t app lyin this ca se b ec au se Z h o u ap p li ed fo r reli ef b ef o re the A ct’s ef

fe cti v e d ate. Se e C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 3 r evi ew t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the I J , i ncl udi ng adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ngs , fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See C hen v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 212, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . U ndert hi s s t andar d, t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i ons w i l l be uphel d i f theyar e s uppor t ed by“r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al a n d p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e o n th e re c o rd c o n sid e re d a s a w h o le.” T a rra w a llyv . A sh c ro f t, 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). A d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n s b a se d o n sp e c u latio n o r c o n jec tu re a re n o t u p h e ld . S e e G a o v . A sh c ro f t, 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n gener al , “mi nori ncons i s t enci es and mi nor admi s s i ons ” ar e notan ade quat e bas i s foran adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. I d. A ny di s cr epanc i es m us ti nvol ve the hea r tof the cl ai m . I d. Fur t herm or e, w e mustuphol d a 1 d e ter m in a tio n re g a rd in g th e a v a ilab ili tyo f c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e u n les s “ a re a so n a b le t r i erof fa cti s compel l ed t o concl ude thats uch corr obor at i ng evi dence i s unavai l abl e. ” I N A § 242( b) ( 4) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ] ; s ee a l s o Sandi e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 562 F. 3d 246, 2 5 2 (3d C ir2 0 0 9 ). T h e IJ c o n clud ed that Z h o u w as n o t cred ible b ec au se sh e “ test ifi ed that there w ere betw een 10 a nd 20 peopl e pr es ent[att he Fal un G ong m eet i ngs s he att ended] . . . [t ] hen

. . . al m os ti m m edi at el ychange d t he t es t i m ony , and s t at ed thatt her e w er e betw een 20 a nd 30 peopl e pr es ent . ” The I J al s o found i t“qui t e i ncr edi bl e” thatZ hou coul d notr eca l l t he n a m e o f th e p e rso n w h o led th e m e e tin g s. F u rth e rm o re , Z h o u tes tifie d th a t sh e liv e d w ith4

a fr i end i n t he t ow n of Zhi C heng fort w o y ear s befor e comi ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es , but h e r a sy lu m a p p lica tio n a n d a irp o rt sta tem e n t li ste d C h a n g le C itya s h e r la st a d d re ss in C hi na. T he I J r ej ect ed Zhou’s expl anat i on t hats he pr ovi ded herpar ent s ’ perm anent addr es s i n C hangl e C i t ybeca us e the ques t i ons w er e notcl ear . T he I J al s o faul t ed Zhou foral l egi ng i n hercr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew t hatC hi nes e author i t i es had des t r oy ed her hous e, om i t t i ng t hatcl ai m fr om heras y l um appl i cat i on, and then expl ai ni ng t hati tw as t he fe nce thatw as destroy ed an d thatshe did no ti nclude i ti n h er appl i cat i on becau se “that ’ s notm aj or . ” Fi nal l y , w i t houtci t i ng anyevi dence , t he I J s aw “no r eas on w hyt he p o lice . . . in C h in a w o u ld b e so in ter e ste d in th e re sp o n d e n t in a sm u c h a s s h e o n ly pr act i ced Fal un G ong fora mont h orl es s . ” W e bel i eve thatt hes e adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ar e nots uppor t ed by su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . N e v e rth e les s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e IJ r e a so n a b lyre q u ire d Z h o u to pr ovi de corr obor at i on forhercl ai m s . See A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 551- 54 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( obs ervi ng t hateven w her e an a ppl i canti s cr edi bl e, corr obor at i on m aybe r equi r ed i f the appl i canti s t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof) . I n deny i ng r el i ef ba s ed on a l ack of corr obor at i on, t he I J m us tconductt he fol l ow i ng t hr ee- par ti nqui r y : ( 1) an i dent i fi cat i on of fa ct s forw hi ch i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec tcorr obor at i on; ( 2) an i nqui r yas to w h e th e r th e a p p lica n t h a s p ro v id e d in f o rm a tio n c o rro b o ra tin g th e re lev a n t f a c ts; a n d , if sh e h as n o t, (3) a n an aly sis of w h ethe r th e a p p li ca n t has ad eq u atelyex p lai n ed h er f ail u re t o do s o. See Toure v. A t t ’ yG en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . Z hou pr ovi ded no5

corr obor at i ng evi dence of herpr act i ce of Fal un G ong. T he I J not ed thatZ hou coul d have subm i t t ed lett ers from fri end s or fam i l yi n C hina, bo ok s that s he read in the U nit ed S t at es, ort he t es t i m onyof heruncl e, w ho l i ved w i t h heratt he t i m e of the hea r i ng. A l t hough Z h o u sta ted th a t h e r f

a m ily“ d o [ e s] n o t h a v e m u c h e d u c a tio n ,” s h e d id n o t ad e q u a tely e x p lain w h ysh e d id n o t p ro d u c e th e F a lu n G o n g lit e ra tu re o r a rra n g e f o r h e r u n c le to t es t i fy . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatZ hou fai l ed t o m eetherbur den of s how i ng t hats he i s el i gi bl e for as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . T he I J al s o corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatZ hou di d not m ee t th e c ri teri a f

o r reli ef u n d er the C A T b ec au se sh e f ail ed to es tablish tha t i t w as m o re l i kel yt han nott hats he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o C hi na. See 8 C . F. R . §§ 208. 16, 2 0 8 .1 8 . 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 yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.