N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HUINAN LIN,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 12-74203 Age n c y No. A088-290-414 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 12, 2017 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : SC HR OEDER , D.W . NELSON, a nd M c KEOW

N, C i rc uit Judge s . Huina n Lin (“ Lin” ) pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of he r a sy lum an d withholding of rem ova l c la im . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we grant in pa

rt, de ny in pa rt, a nd re m and to theB IA. 

# FIL E D OCT 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W e re vie w fa c tua l findings, inc luding findings tha t an a l ie n ha s fa ile d to e sta blish e l igibility

for a s y lum or withholding of rem ova l a nd a d ve rse c re dibility findings, for substa

ntia l e v ide nc e . Singh v . Holde r , 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th C ir. 2014). “ Whe re the B IA issue s its own de c ision but re lie s in pa rt on the im m igration judge ’ s re a s oning, were v ie w both de c isions.” Flore s-Lope z v . Holde r , 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th C ir. 2012). TheB IA’ s finding of ine ligibility for re lie f will be re ve rse d only if the e vide nc e “ c om

pe l s” the re ve rsa l . Tang v . Gonzale s , 489 F.3d 987, 990 (9th C ir. 2007). “ Whe the r a n im m igration proc e e ding viola

te s a n a lie n’ s due proc e ss rights is a pure ly le ga l issue and is re vie we d de novo.” Hamazaspyan v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion omitte d). First, Lin’ s ope ning brie f doe s not spe c ific a lly c ha lle nge or disc u ss the B IA’ s finding tha

t she fa ile d to show a

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution in C hina ba s e d on the fa c t

tha t she ha s two c hildre n, one of whom wa s born in the Unite d State s. Ac c ordingly , Lin ha s wa ive d a ny c ha lle nge to this finding. Se e Martine z -Se rrano v . I.N

.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). Lin a lso a

rgue s tha t using her husba

nd, Huomin C a o’ s (“ C a o ” ) a sy lum a pplic ation a

nd tra nsc ript viola

te d he r Fifth Am e ndm e nt right to a full a nd fa ir he aring be c a

use she wa s not given the opportunity to produc e C a o’ s te stim ony or 2to re vie w the m ate ria l s from his im m igration proc e e dings. Howe ve r, Lin ne ve r pre s e nte d this c la i m

to the B IA. Furthe r, the e rror wa s proc e dura l, give n tha t the IJ c ould ha v e a d journe d the he aring to provide the Pe titione r a

n opportunity

to produc e he r husba

nd’ s te stim o ny

and to re vie wthe e vide nc e the gove rnm e nt introduc e d. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). Thus, Lin’ s due proc e ss c l a im

is une x ha

uste d suc h tha

t the pa ne l la c ks jurisdic tion to a ddre s s it. Sola v . Holde r , 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th C ir. 2013). Fina lly , the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e be c a

use the B IA, in a dopting the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) rationa le , use d om issions a nd disc re pa

nc ie s in C a o’ s a sy lum

a pplic at ion a

nd te stim ony in his own im

m igration proc e e dings to find Lin not c re dible . S

e eBao v . Gonzale z , 460 F.3d 426, 431–32 (2d C ir. 2006) (finding tha t the re wa s no ba sis for a ssum ing B a o’ s a c c ount wa s fa bric at e d a nd he r husba

nd Zhe ng’ s wa s the c orre c t a c c ount of fa c ts). The IJ found tha t nothing in Lin’ s de m e a

nor de tra c te d

from he r c re d ibility , y e t

re je c te d a ll of Lin’ s e xpla

nations, e v e n whe n she stood by he r own ve rsion of e ve nts. W e c onc lude tha t the ove ra ll re lia

nc e on C a o’ s a sy lum a pplic ation a

nd prior te stim ony

wa s a rbitra ry . As Lin a rgue s, the tota l ity

of the c i rc um sta

nc e s c om pe l tha t she should be de e m e d c re dible . B e c a

use ne ithe r the B IA nor the IJ m a de an a dve rse c re d ibility 3finding a ga inst Lin’ s witne ss, Xia o Qin Lin (“ Qin Lin” ), we tre at he r fa c tua l

a lle gations a s true . Se e Aguilar-Ramos v. Holde r , 594 F.3d 701, 704 (9th C ir. 2010). Qin Lin te stifie d

tha t she kne w Lin wa s involunta rily ta ke n by offic ia ls to have the a

bortion pe rform e d. Qin Lin sta te d tha t she took c a

re of Lin two da

y s a fte r the a bortion while

she wa s c ry ing, pa l e , a

nd we ak. Se eShre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1040–41 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta ting tha t the IJ should not ignore e vide nc e tha

t c orroborate s the a lie n’ s c l a im ). The 1999 C ountry C o nditions R

e port note s tha t forc e d a bortions a nd ste riliz ations oc c urre d de spite C hina ’ s offic ia l polic y . Zhu v . Gonzale

s , 493 F.3d 588, 598 (5th C ir. 2007). Furthe r, a s pa rt of the e vide nc e in he r c a se , Lin provide d doc um e ntation from Jia ngjing Town Hospita

l showing tha

t she ha d a

n a bortion on De c e m

b e r 27, 2000. Lin also provide d a notic e a ddre sse d to he r to re port for IUD a nd pre gna n c y c he c ks from

the C angxi Villa ge C om

m itte e . The notic e sta

te d tha t if she did not report to theFam ily Planning Offic e , she “ will be punishe d pursua nt to re le v ant Fa

m ily Pla nning R e gula tions.”A note from

Dr. Gwe ndoly

n P. C hung a

n d Dr. Dia

na Y. Hua ng in Hawa i i showe d

tha t R e sponde nt’ s se c ond IUD wa s re m o ve d on Se pte m be r 15, 2008. TheGove rnm e nt did not obje c t to thesubm ission of the se c o pie s a n d the re wa s nothing in the

re c ord to “ support a

finding tha

t the doc um e nts [we re ] not c re d ible . ” Se e W

ang v . Ashc roft , 341 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th C ir. 2003) (finding

4doc um e nta

ry support c re dible whe re “ the re wa s no opposition to the introduc tion or c ha lle n ge to the a

uthe ntic ity

of the se doc um e nts by

the INS,” e ve n whe re the IJ found the doc um e nts unbe lie v a ble ). B e c a

use the doc um e ntat ion a

nd Qin Lin’ s te stim ony are c re dible , the y

c orroborate he r pa st pe rse c ution c la im , i.e ., tha t she ha d a forc e d a b ortion a nd m ultipleIUD inse rtions. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1040–41. Afte r a re v e rsa l of a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm i nation, “ [w] e m

ust now de c ide whe the r we de te rm ine e ligibility for a sy l um

and withholding of re

m o va l or whe the r we re m and for a

de te rm ination by

the B IA.” W

ang , 341 F.3d a

t 1023. As se t forth a bove , this C ourt finds c re dible Lin’ s c la im tha t she wa s forc e d to a

bort he r pre gna

nc y . Se e Hev . Ashc roft , 328 F.3d 593, 604 (9th C ir. 2003). As a vic tim of forc e d a

b ortion, Lin is the

re fore sta tutorily e ligible for a sy l um and “ e ntitle d to withholding of rem o v a l a s a m atte r of la

w.” Tang , 489 F.3d. a

t 992. B a se d on the tota lity of c irc um sta

nc e s, the re is no “re a sona b le prospe c t from

the a dm inistra

tive re c o rd tha t the re m ay

be a dditional re a sons upon which the IJ or B IA c ould re ly ” to find he r c la im

not c re dible . Soto-Olarte v . Holde r , 555 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th C ir. 2009). In sum , we grant the pe tition in pa rt a nd hold tha

t Lin is e ntitle d to withholding of rem o v a l a s a m atte r of la

w. In a ddition, sinc e Lin is sta tutorily 5e ligiblefor a sy lum , we re m and to theB IA so tha t the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l m ay e xe rc ise its disc re t ion in gra nting a sy lum . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1); Tang , 489 F.3d. at 992. W e de ny

the pe tition in pa

rt a s to thedue proc e ss viola t ion c la im and c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s finding of fe ar of future pe rse c ution. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , and RE M ANDE D.

6