2010 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 7-2-2010 

# Xiu Y an 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 . 09-4159

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " Xiu Y an v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1027. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/10271

I M G- 2 4 3 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. 09- 4159

___________ XI U YUE YAN, Pet i t i oner 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 99- 023- 380) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y1, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H A N D W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

(O p inion fil ed : July0 2 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM

X i u Y ue Y an s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval . Forthe r eas ons t hat f o l l o w, 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.2 I. Pet i t i onerX i u Y ue Y an, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of C h in a , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s a t O ’H a re In ter n a tio n a l A irp o rt, i n C h ica g o , Ill in o is, in Sept ember2005, and conc eded thathe w as r emovabl e. She s oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T r el i ef, pr edi cat ed on herpas tper s ecut i on and fe arof per s ecut i on bas ed on herpr act i ce of Fal un G ong. Y an t es t i fi ed thatherpar ent s w er e Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner s . I n 2001, the pol i ce c ame t o herfami l y ’ s hom e, l ooki ng forherpar ent s , w ho w er e nothom e. Y an as s ert s thats he w as “har as s ed” a nd “thr eat ened, ” and thatthe pol i ce r eturned eve r yfew day s . H erpar ent s di d notr eturn unt i l 2004. Shor t l yther eaf t er , the p o lice re tu rn e d to th e h o u se , b u t h e r p a re n ts h a d a lre a d ylef t. T h e p o lice to o k Y a n in to cust od yand i nterrogat ed h er for tw o d ay s.

Y a n s ta te s th a t s h e b e g a n p ra c tic in g F a lu n G o n g in 2 0 0 5 . H e r c o u s in , a ma i l ma n i n a g o v e r n me n to f f i c e , d i s c o v e r e d th a tth e p o l i c e p l a n n e d t o a rr e s tYa n . He w arned her , and s he arr anged t o l eave C hi na. She has cont i nued t o pr act i ce Fal un G ong w h ile in th e U n ited S tate s. S h e tes tifie d th a t h e r u n c le h a s to ld h e r th a t th e p o lice a re still lo o k in g f o r h e r a n d th a t sh e w ill b e a rre ste d a s a F a lu n G o n g p ra c tit io n e r if sh e re tu rn s to C hi na. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng thatY an w as not credi ble, and that i n an yeven tshe had no tdem on strat ed p astor future persecut i on , or past o r fu ture torture . T h e IJ q u esti o n ed the p rob ati v e v alue o f h er u n cle’s u n sw o rnT he uncl e’ s s t at ementr ecount s the pol i ce a ct i vi tyatY an’ s fami l y ’ s hom e i n 2001 1 and 2004. H ow ever , he does nots aythatthe pol i ce a r e s t i l l curr ent l ys ear chi ng forY an, n o r d o e s h e e x p lain h o w h e k n o w s th e in f o rm a tio n c o n tain e d in h is s tate m e n t. T h e f rie n d sta tes in h e r a f

f id a v it th a t sh e k n e w th a t Y a n ’s f a m ilyw a s p e rse c u ted in 2 C hi na due t o t hei rFal un G ong act i vi t i es . She does nots aythatY an her s el f pr act i ced F a lu n G o n g a c tiv itie s in C h in a , n o r d o e s s h e e x p la in h o w s h e k n o w s th e in f o rm a tio n . T h e a f f ia n t, a n a s y le e liv in g in F lu s h in g , d id n o t a p p e a r b e f o re th e IJ to te s tif

y . 3 stat em en t , an d d isco u n ted a n af fid av itfro m Y an ’s frien d that att ested to Y an ’s 1 c o n tin u in g p ra c tice o f

F a lu n G o n g in th e U n ited S tate s. T h e IJ a lso to o k f a u lt w ith 2 Y an’ s fai l ur e t o pr oduce a nycorr obor at i ng evi dence fr om hercous i n oranyof herfour s i bl i ngs , w ho s t i l l l i ve i n C hi na, r egar di ng the pol i ce a ct i vi tyatthe fa m i l yhom e, orany d o c u m e n tatio n su p p o rtin g h e r c laim th a t sh e w a s h e ld in p o lice c u sto d yf o r tw o d a y s in 2004. T he I J di d notbel i eve he rcl ai m thats he had be en arr es t ed, and conc l uded that even i f s he had be en, s he w as “notharm ed and w as notphy s i cal l ybeat en, ” and he r exper i ence di d notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. ( A . R . 54. ) T he I J al s o det erm i ned that Y a n h a d f

a ile d to s u p p o rt h e r c la im th a t s h e is a c u rr e n t F a lu n G o n g p ra c titio n e r. T he I J cons i der ed Y an’ s s w orn s t at ementatthe ai rpor tupon ent er i ng the countryi n 2005. T he I J not ed thats he w as ques t i oned i n herow n l anguage , and thats he acknow l edged thats he under s t ood eac h ques t i on. Y an s t at ed thatherpar ent s w er e bei ng s oughtbythe pol i ce f

orthei rFal un G ong act i vi t i es , and thats he ca m e t o the U ni t ed St at es beca us e s he w as l ooki ng fora j ob and bec aus e the pol i ce w ant ed t o arr es ther p a re n ts. S h e d e n ied p ra c ticin g F a lu n G o n g h e rse lf , an d d e n ied th a t th e p o lice w a n ted to a rre st h e r. Y a n late r te stif ied th a t h e r a irp o rt sta tem e n t w a s f a lse , an d th a t sh e h a d m e re ly4

fol l ow ed the “s nakehe ad’ s ” i ns truct i ons t o denybei ng a Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner . B as ed upon the ai rpor ts t at ementand the l ack of othercorr obor at i ng evi dence , the I J di d not bel i eve Y an had e verpr act i ced Fal un G ong i n C hi na, and conc l uded thatanythr eat s of arr estdu e t o h er r efusal ori nab i l i tyt o reveal the w hereabo uts of h er par ents did not r i se t o the l evel of per s ecut i on.

T h e B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) a g ree d w ith the IJ’s concl us i ons and af

fi r m ed, fi ndi ng thatY an had notm etherbur den of pr oof underanyof th e a p p lic a b le s ta n d a rd s . Y a n f ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). S e e A b d u la i v . A s h c ro f t, 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

“ B e c a u se th e [ B IA ] im p licitlya d o p ted th e f in d in g s o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e w h ile di s cus s i ng the I J ’ s concl us i ons , w e r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the [BIA ] and the I J . ” Is si aka v . A t t ’yG en. , 56 9 F . 3d 13 5, 13 7 (3d C i r. 20 09 ). W e revi ew factual fi nd i ng s, i ncl udi ng adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons , fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , s ee But tv. G o n z a les , 4 2 9 F .3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), u p h o ld in g th e m “ u n les s a n yre a so n a b 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 . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ); s ee a l s o D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 262 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . B eca us e Y an fi l ed her asy l um app l i cat i on aft er the en act m ent of the R E A L ID A ct , the incon si st encies , i nacc ur aci es , orfal s ehoods upon w hi ch the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng i s bas ed nee d not5

go t o the hea r tof hercl ai m s . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ; L i n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F .3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 n .5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). R a th e r, th e R E A L ID A c t p e rm its c re d ib ili ty d eterm ination s to b e b ase d o n o b serv ati o n s o f h er d em ea n o r, the p laus ibil ityo f h er story a n d o n th e c o n s is te n c yo f h e r s ta te m e n ts . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )( 1 )( B )( iii) .

III . Y an fi r s tcl ai m s thatthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng i s nots uppor t ed by su b stan ti al ev iden ce . S h e a rgu es th at th e IJ’s d eterm ination is pro b lem ati c b ec au se th e IJ r el i ed s ol el yon i ncons i s t enci es betw een he rai rpor ti nt ervi ew and herpr es ent at i on ather r emoval hear i ng. See Fi adj oe v. A t t ’ yG en. , 411 F. 3d 135, 159 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (in c o n sis ten c ies b e tw e e n a irp o rt in ter v iew s a n d tes tim o n yb e f o re a n IJ a re in su f

f icie n t to su p p o rtan ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing ). T h e B IA ag ree d w ith the IJ tha t Y an ’s expl anat i on forthe di s cr epanc i es w as unconvi nci ng, and pr oper l yconcl uded thatthe r el i abi l i tyconce r ns aboutai rpor ti nt ervi ew s w er e notpr es enti n Y an’ s cas e. See i d. at 159 ( “Such an i nt ervi ew i s l i kel yt o be hurr i ed; l anguage di ffi cul t i es ar i s e; the r es ul t s m ay b e i n a c c u r a t e l yr e c o r d e d , a n d a n a r r i v i n g a l i e n wh o h a s s u f f e r e d a b u s e i n h i s h o me countrym aybe r el uct antt o r evea l ful l i nform at i on i n hi s orherfi r s tm eet i ng w i th the g o v e rn m e n t.” ); s e e a ls o X ie v . A s h c ro f t, 3 5 9 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). M o re o v e r, th e IJ a n d B IA d id n o t re lyo n Y a n ’s in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts al one. Y an’ s tw o s uppor t i ng document s –s t at ement s fr om an uncl e i n C hi na and a fr i end i n N ew Y or k–w er e i ns uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i at ed and w er e di s count ed. T he I J not ed that6

b e c a u se Y a n ’s c laim s w e re su sp e c t, sh e w a s re q u ire d to su p p o rt h e r c laim s w ith c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e . S e e A b d u lai, 2 3 9 F .3 d a t 5 5 1 -5 2 . Y a n a rg u e s th a t sta tem e n ts f ro m h e r sib lin g s in C h in a w o u ld h a v e b e e n d u p lica tiv e o f h e r o th e r e v id e n c e , an d th a t it w a s to o d a n g e ro u s f

o r h e r c o u s in , a g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e , to p ro v id e a n a f f id a v it. N e v e r th e l e s s , th e s t a t e m e n t s Y a n d i d p r o v i d e w e r e o f q u e s t i o n a b l e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . We fi nd thatthe B I A r eas onabl yr el i ed on Y an’ s l ack of corr obor at i ng evi dence , i ncl udi ng s ta te m e n ts f

ro m h e r s ib lin g s a n d f

e llo w F a lu n G o n g p ra c titio n e rs in th e U n ite d S ta te s . Y a n n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e IJ a n d B IA e rre d in f in d in g th a t sh e h a d f

a iled to m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f

p ro o f. “[ P ]e rse c u tio n c o n n o tes e x tre m e b e h a v io r, in c lu d in g ‘th re a ts t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ’ ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he B I A det erm i ned thatY an’ s acc ountof the pr obl ems s t emm i ng fr om herpar ent s ’ Fal un G ong act i vi t i es –the r epea t ed pol i ce vi s i t s and the tw o day s of cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on–even i f cr edi bl e, do notes t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A i s corr ectt hat s uch harm and thr eat s of harm do notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. See V oci v. G onzal es , 409 F. 3d 607, 614- 15 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( per s ecut i on does noti ncl ude “i s ol at ed i nci dent s thatdo notr es ul ti n s er i ous i nj ury ”) . A ccor di ngl y , Y an has notm etherbur den of pr oof foras y l um r el i ef.

A s Y an has fai l ed t o m eetthe bur den foras y l um , s he fa i l s t o m eetthe hi gherbur den forw i thhol di ng of r emoval under8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . See Lukw ago v.7

A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 182 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . L i kew i s e, the r ecor d does nots uppor ther c l a i m f o rCA T p r o t e c t i o n . S e e i d . a t1 8 2 - 8 3 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e BI A p r o p e r l yd e n i e d CA T re lie f. IV .

F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .