## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 3511 Q I U P I NG L I, P etitio ner, v.
E R I C H. H OLDER, J R
. , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A97 391 066
A RG UE D J UNE 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 15, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudge

. The pet i ti onerse eks j ud i ci al re vie w of th e d en ial b y t h e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls o fhe r motion to r ec o ns i derthe Bo ar d’ s o r derde ny i ng her appli cati on f orasyl um . S he hadn’tso ught r evi ew o f th ato r der, a nd the t i m e f o r s ee k i ngr evi ew o fi t i s l o ng p ast, yet her brief argu es only th e invalidity of that ord er; i t does not touch o n the m er i ts ofthe or der a ctual l y under re vi ew , the or der denyi ng r eco nsi derat i on. But nei ther2 N o. 09

- 3511 does the Boa rd i n i ts b rie f a rgue thatthe peti ti oner has wai ved orf or f ei ted herchal l enge to the de ni alo f re consi derat i on; i t arg ues m er el y that the chal l enge l ac k s m er i t. The Bo ar d thus wai ve d wai ve r . At o r ala r g um ent we as ked the l aw yer s t o add re ss the s oundn ess o f the deni alo fthe m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on, and they did so. The i ss ue thus i s bo thpr o per l y b efo r e us a nd rip e fo r d ec isio n . To rza la v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 54 5 F

. 3d 517, 52 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); B a dw a n v . Go nz a les , 49 4 F .3d 5 66, 57 1 (6t h C ir. 20 0 7 ); Z ho ng v. G o nz a les , 46 1 F

. 3d 101, 12 1 ( 2d C ir. 2006). T he pet iti one r i s from Fuj ian p rovince , w he re Ch ina’s “one- chi l d” pol i cy i s v i go ro usl y e nforced. H erm othe r had been fi ned fo r vi ol ati ng th e p olic y a nd l ate r subj ecte d t o f o r ce d s te r i l i za ti o n. The pe ti ti o ne r o ppo se d the po l i cyt o o , a nd s o w he n n o ti fi ed i n 2 00 2, whens he turned 18 , to r epor t f orher first re quir ed peri odi c pre gna nc y t es t ( a m ea su r e empl o y ed bythe f ami l y - pl an ni ng author i ti es to enf or ce the o n e-chi l d pol i cy) , she i gnor ed the no ti ce. Fi ve f am i l y- pla nning offi cers c am e t o her ho us e to fi nd o utwhy sh e h ad n’ts ho wn up f o r the test. S he t o l d the m the r ea so n was he r o ppo si ti o n t o the on e-c h ild p olic y. T h e o ffice rs res p on d ed by forc ibly re m ovi ng herto the f am i l y- plan n in g o ffi ce, and w hen sh e refused to p rovide a urine sam p le th ere th e s t aff yanke d dow n herpants and fo rce d ortr i ed to f or ce uri ne fro m her . W h at exactl y they di d and w hether th ey su cce ed ed i n obt aining u rine i s un clear. The f o l l o wi n gy e a r, wh i l e th e p e t i t i o n e r wa s s t a y i ng wi tha c o us i n who was pr egnan t wi tha s ec o nd c hi l d, theN o. 09

- 3511 3

co us i n r ec ei ve d a no ti ce t o a ppea r a t th e fam il y - pl an ni ng offi ce foran e xam i nati on. S he i gnor ed the noti ce b ecause sh e w as afraid she’d be forced to have an ab ortion. So w hen f am i l y- pla n n in g o ffi cer s ca m e t o her house to bring heri n f orthe exam i nati on, the peti ti one r tr ied to b loc k t h em from en te rin g, w h ile h er co u sin h id in the b athr oo m . By the ti m e the o ffi cer s had f or ced an en tr an ce the cousi n h ad fl ed th r o ug h the b athr o o m wi ndo w. S o the o ffi c e r s t o o kthe p e t i t i o ne r i nt o c usto dy i nstea d, and kept her i n j ai l f orthr ee days. Duri ng her st ayi n j ai l s he was g i ve n n o b ed to s l eep on an d the only food s h e w as given w as on e serving a d ay of porr i dge

. The p orri d g e m ade he r s i ckt o he r s to m ac h a nd she was l ate r diagnose d as s uffer i ng fr om ga str i ti s, w hi ch the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge fou n d had bee n caused by the por ri dge. The peti ti oner ’ s m ot h er pai d 5, 000 yuan

— abou t a third of the p etitioner’s ann ua l salary

— to getherr el eas ed fro m j ai l

. The g o ve r nm en t’ s br i efde sc r ibe s th i s as “ bail, ” an d w e’ l l acc ept the char acte ri zati on. H erf am i l y deci ded s he ’ d b e t t e r l e a v e the c o un t r y, s o s he fl e d t o the U ni ted St at es , po ss ibly on a for g e d p a s sp or t, th ou gh th is is u n c lear, and ask ed f oras yl um . H erco usi n re m ai ns in hi di ngi n China , a nd f ami l y - pl an ni ngo ffi ce r s vi si t th e pet i ti o ne r ’ s par en ts fr o m t i m e to t i m e to i nqui r e ab o ut the pet i ti oner ’ s whereab outs. The i m m i g r at i o n j udg e den i ed th e pet i ti o n f o r a sy l um in p ar t b ec au se of d ou b ts ab ou t t h e p et itio n er ’s c re d ib i l i t y . B u ti n d i s mi s s i n gh e r a p p e a l th e B o a r d “ d e c l i ne [ d] to a ddr ess c r edibi l i ty, ” r ul i ngtha t ev eni fhe r t es ti m o ny4 N o. 09

- 3511 ( sum m ar i zed abo ve) was tr u e, she had notpro ved that she ’ d b e e n pe r s e c ut e d, o r ha d a we l l

- f o un de d f e ar o f being p ersec u t e d if sh e is retu rned to Ch ina. T he Boa rd sai d she had “nev erpro vi ded a urine sa m ple and, thus, ne ver offici all y com p li ed w ith th e fam il y plan nin g’s request t o subm i t t o a pre gnancy tes t. S i gni fi cantl y, [ she] w as neverthr eat ened, detained, physi cal l y har m ed, o r th reaten ed w ith su ch ha rm as a resu lt of h e r fail ure to com plyas dire cted. ” M or eov er, she had “f ai l ed to demons tr at e th at, b ec au se s he f ai l ed to pro vi de a ur i ne sam ple o r ai ded herco usi n i n avo i ding d et ec ti on by fam il y plan nin g offici als, she w as tar g e ted f or harm because she acte d i n a m anner that w oul d con st itute

‘ re si sta nce’ o r opposi ti on t o a co er ci ve f am i l y c ontr ol p ro gr am . Th u s, [sh e] d id n otsu ffer p as t p er se c u tio n in Ch i na o n acco unt ofa p ro te c ted gr ound.” A nd i t was unli kel y that s he would be p er se cuted i fshe re turned t o C hin a, bec au se he r confli cts w ith th e fam ily plan ne rs w er e “ f ai rl y r em ote , 20 02 and 2003, and i t doe s no t appe artha t [ sh e] i nj ured o r pr o vo k ed an y o ffi ce r s. ” The B oard did not m en tion th at sh e w as a bail j um p er. I n m ovi ng f orr eco nsi derati on, the peti ti onerpoi nted ou t that the Boa rd had ov er l oo ked “hero therr esi sta nce to c o er ci ve po p ulati o n c o nt r o l pr o g r am when sh e ass i ste d h er c ousi n to es cape and f orwh i ch she w as detai ned fo r thre e days ” a nd had “f ai l ed to di scuss wh e th e r t hr e e d a y d e t e n t i o n a n d mi s t r e a t me n tc o mbi ne d wi thc o ns i der ab l e fi ne r i se t o the l ev elof per se cutio n .” Ind en yi n g t h e m ot ion th e B oa rd sa id th at it ha d “ co ns i der ed an d a ddr es se d the se c lai m s. W e fi nd no m erit in the ass er ti on that we ov er l oo ked the se f acts
.N o. 09

- 3511 5 The [ pet i ti o ne r ] ha s no t demon st r at ed m i st r ea tment am ou nt ing to p ersecu tion.” N or ha d sh e “offered su ffi ci en t ev i den ce reg ar di ngthe fi ne t o e st ab l i shpe r se cuti on, ” be cause “the re cor d contains sc an t inf or m ati on co nc erni ng[ he r ] fi na nc i als i tu at i o n. ” I n s ho r t, “ sh e ha s no t d emon st r at ed ane r r o r i n f ac t o r l aw i n o ur p riorde cision to w arran t recon side ration.” Th e B oard d id n otad d re ss th e like lih oo d th at th e p e t i t i o n er w ou ld be per secute d i fshe re turned t o Ch i na. The de ni alo fa m otion to r ec o ns i dera n o r derde ny i ng as ylu m is j u d icia lly re vie w ab le, R agh un a tha n v . Ho lder, 60 4 F .3d 37 1, 37 6 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); A veria no va v. Ho l der, 592 F. 3d 931, 93 5 ( 8th Ci r. 20 10) ; se e Kucan a v. H o lder, 13 0 S. Ct. 82 7 (2010) , and i s r eve rs ibl e f oran abuse o fdi scr etio n . R agh un a tha n v . Ho lder, sup ra , 60 4 F .3d at37 6 ; Liu v. M uk a sey, 553 F.3d 3 7, 4 0 (1 st C ir. 20 09 ); Aliye v v . M uk a sey, 54 9 F

. 3d 111, 11 5- 16 ( 2d Cir

. 20 08)

. S uch an a b us e i s s ho wn whe n, the p e t i t i o ne r h a v i ngi de nt i fi e d a s e r i o u s e r r o r i n th e Bo a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n ga s y l u m, the Boa rd deni es re consi derat i on without a pp eari ng to h a ve n ot ice d th e e rro r. Id . at 1 18 -19 ; I gl e s i as v. M uka sey , 54 0 F .3d 52 8, 53 1 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); G o m es v . G o n z a les , 47 3 F .3d 74 6, 75 6-5 7 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 07 ); N a rine v . Ho lder, 5 5 9 F .3d 24 6, 24 9 (4 th C ir. 20 09 ); Yeg hi azaryan v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 994, 1000 ( 9th Cir. 2006). The or der denyi ng as yl um had sta ted thatthe peti ti oner ha d ne ve r g i ven a ur i ne s ampl e. Buti fhe r t es ti m o ny i s be l i eve d

— and rem em b er that the Board has notquesti oned her c re dibi l i ty

— f am i l y- pla nning offi cer s s ubj ecte d her to physi calf or ce in a n eff or t t o obt ai n uri ne.6 N o. 09

- 3511 W e d on ’t k n ow w h et h er t h e y s u c c ee d ed (th e B oa rd sa id the y ha dn ’ t, b ut i t i s un c l e a r wha t tha t fi nd i ngwas ba se d o n) , b uttha t is ir r el ev an t; the o bj ec ti o n i s to the appli cati on o ff or ce. T he original order ha d not m en tioned the p etitioner’s th re e- day detenti on. I t does sta te that she “w as never . . . d et ain ed

. . . a s a r e s u l t of h er failu re to co m ply as di rected ” (em p ha sis add ed ), w hich m ay m ean that sh e w asn ’t de t a i ne d beca use of h er refu sa l t o giv e a u rin e s am p le vo l u n t a r i l y a s i twe r e , b u tf o r s o me o th e r r e a s o n . But the n e xts e nt e nc e s t a t e s tha ts he wa s n o t“ t a r g e t e d f or harm ” be cause ofe ith erthatr efusalo r her hel ping her cousi n eva de the o ne- chi l d pol i cy

— y etthe de te nt i o n, th e unhe al th y c o ndi ti o ns o fthe de te nt i o n, a nd the fi ne ( none o fwh i ch i s m enti oned) am ounted notj u st to ta r g et i nghe r f or h ar m , b utt o hi tt i ngthe t ar g et
. The st at em en t in th e B oa rd ’s b rie f th at “a lth ou gh [th e p et iti one r] argues that her thre e- day detent i on a m ounts to pas t p ersecuti on, the Board di d not abuse i ts disc re ti on in rea ffirm in g its h old in g t h at su c h tre at m en t, w h ile unp l e a s a n t, d o e s n o ta mo u n tt o p e r s e c u t i o n ” i s f a l s e . The o r derde ny i nga sy l um di d no t m en ti on th e det en ti o n, letalon e c h ar ac te riz e itas m er ely “u n p lea sa n t.” Granted, ther e i s a differ ence between opposing a po l i cy, a nd the t ac ti cs t o whi cho ne r es o r ts ino ppo sing i t. S ee Shardar v. A shcroft, 382 F.3d 318 , 323 (3d Cir. 2004); C h a n c o v . INS , 82 F. 3d 298 , 30 2 ( 9th Ci r. 19 96)

. H owever abhor re nt China’ s o ne- chi l d pol i cy m ay be, i t w oul d not be per secuti on f orC h in a to hav e j ai l ed the peti ti oner had she as saul ted the fa m i l y- pla nning offi cer s when theyN o. 09

- 3511 7 bro ught heri n to gi ve a ur i ne sa m ple o r w hen they f orced an e ntra nce t o her cousi n’s house

. S ee Guch s he nkov v. A shcroft, 36 6 F.3d 55 4, 55 9 (7th C ir. 20 04 ); Cru z- Samayoa v. H o lder, N o. 09

- 3824, 20 10 W L 24994 23, at*5- 6 ( 6th C ir. Ju n e 2 1, 20 10 ); X un Li v. H o lder, 5 5 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 6 , 11 08 ( 9th Ci r. 20 09)

. But ac c or ding to the Boa rd, o n nei ther oc c as ion d id sh e s o m u c h as “p ro vo ke ” t h em . N or d id the Bo ar d suggestthathero pp osi ti on t acti cs j usti fi ed th e t r ea tmentmete d o utt o he r b y the f ami l y - pl an ni ng author i ti es. S o f aras appears , the re aso n sh e w as m i str eat ed w as her op posi ti on t o the o ne- chi l d pol i cy, r ather th an h er rec ou rs e t o m et h od s o f op p os itio n th at w ou ld have provi ded an ind ependent j usti fi cati on f or the m i str eat m ent. (On the di sti ncti on, se e Shardar v. A shcroft, sup ra , 3 8 2 F .3d at32 3; C ruz -Sa m a yo a v. Ho lder, sup ra , a t * 7

. ) The Bo ar d’ s only g r o unds f o r de ny i nga sy l um wer e th atthe author i ti es’ tr eat m ent of her w as not seve re enoug h to am ount t o perse c u tio n and that she has nothi ng to fear f ro m them i fshe i s r etur ned to Ch i na. Whe th e r i n C h i n a ’ s p r u d i s hc u l t u r e th e p u l l i n gd o wn o fa n 18 -y ea r - o l d g i r l ’ s pan ts b y o ffi ce r s who wer e us i ng for c e t o t ry to ex tr a c t u r in e fro m h er , j ailin g h er u n til her f am i l y pai d a fi ne equal to a thi rd o fherye ar ’ s wages, and fe edi ng herta i nted f oo d i n the ja i l am ounted to p ersecu tion is an i ssu e in the fi rst instan ce for the B oard to d ec id e. So far a s w e c a n d et er m in e fro m its ord er s, it has y et to deci de i t. Fi rs t i t o verlo ok ed the cri ti calf acts, an d then i t unconvinci ngl y deni ed havi ng o ver l oo ked th em. The pe ti ti o n f o r r ev i ew i s th er efo r e g r an te d, the de n i a l o f th e mo t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r i s v a c a t e d , an d t he8 N o. 09

- 3511

case i s r etur ned to the B oa rd f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

7- 15- 10