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 10-14-2010 

# Zhong Huang 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 . 09-4648

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 a nova . 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Zhon g Huan g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 431. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/431NOT 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- 4648

___________ Z HONG C HUN HU ANG, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 088- 527- 776) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

_______________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober13, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober14, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Z ho ng C hu n H uan g p et i t i on s for r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on.2 I. Hu a n g i s a c i t i z e n o f

Ch i n a wh o e n t e r e d t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l yi n 2 0 0 6 . He appl i ed foras y l um , s t atut or yw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e on the gr ounds of pas tand futur e mi s t r eatm entunderC hi na’ s coer ci ve fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es and the pena l t i es he fa ces forhavi ng l eftC hi na i l l egal l y . T he G overnm entl at erchar ged hi m as r emovabl e forbei ng pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i t houthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed, s ee 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , w hi ch H uang con cedes. H uang t es t i fi ed athi s hear i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) and off er ed c o rr o b o ra tin g s ta te m e n ts f ro m v a ri o u s f

a m ily m e m b e rs a s w e ll a s b a c k g ro u n d e v id e n c e . H uang t es t i fi ed that , aft erhe and hi s w i fe ha d a chi l d, s he bec ame pr egnantagai n and w en t i n to h iding . In Ja n u ary2 0 0 6 , b irth co n tr o l of ficials l o ca ted h er a n d too k h er f o r a for ced a bor t i on. H uang w as pr es entatt he t i m e and i nt ervened. W hen he di d, t he offi ci al s punched hi m i n t he bac k, ki cked hi s l egs , t i ed hi s hands , and t ook hi m t o a r oom att he bi r t h contr ol offi ce, w her e theyhel d hi m overni ght . H uang t es t i fi ed thatt he bea t i ng lef t “b ru ise s a ll o v e r,” b u t als o th a t h e d id n o t se e k m e d ica l trea tm e n t b e c a u se , in p a rt, i t w as “nott hatbad. ” ( A . R . 80. ) W hi l e H uang w as det ai ned, offi ci al s per for m ed a f or ced abor t i on on hi s w i fe. T he I J found H uang cr edi bl e butdeni ed r el i ef. T he I J concl uded thatH uang hi m s el f di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on i n t he form of hi s w i fe’ s abor t i on, t hathi s beat i ngW e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). B e c a u se th e B IA iss u e d its 1 ow n deci s i on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r athert han thatof the I J . See En H ui H uang v. A tt’ yG e n ., — F .3 d — , N o . 0 9 -2 4 3 7 , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 4 8 9 5 4 3 , a t * 4 (3 d C ir . S e p . 8 , 2 0 1 0 ). W e r evi ew fac tual det erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and maynotdi s turb t hem unl es s “anyr eas onabl e fa ct - fi nderw oul d be ‘ compel l ed t o concl ude otherw i s e[. ] ’ ” I d. (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B )). W e re v iew c o n c lu sio n s o f law d e n o v o , su b

jec t to es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of def er ence on agenc yr evi ew . See i d.

3 and br i ef de t ent i on di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on, and thathe pr es ent ed no e v id e n c e th a t h e f

a c e s p e rse c u tio n o r to rtu re if re tu rn e d to C h in a . T h e B IA c o n d u c ted its ow n r evi ew of the evi dence and r eac hed es s ent i al l yt he s ame concl us i ons . H uang p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w. 1 II. H uang r ai s es t hr ee a r gum ent s on r evi ew . E ach of t hem l acks m er i t . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hatt he B I A err ed i n concl udi ng t hathe had nots how n a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o C hi na bec aus e of hi s vi ol at i on of the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es an d b ec au se h e lef

t C h ina ill eg all y . H u an g ref ers g en era ll yto h is t esti m o n y , w h ich th e IJ found cr edi bl e, buthe does notci t e anyt es t i m onyorot herevi dence of r ecor d t hat compel s a contr aryconcl us i on, and ourr evi ew of the r ecor d has l ocat ed none. T o t he contr ary , t he B I A ci t ed H uang’ s ow n t es t i m onyt hatC hi nes e off i ci al s have notbeen s e a r c h i n g f

o rh i m s i n c e h e l e f

t . ( BI A De c . a t2 ) ( c i t i n g N. T. , No v . 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , a t4 0 ; A. R. 9 6 ). T h at t esti m o n yco n sti tutes su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt ing it s co n clus ion . T h e B IA also co n clud ed that H u an g d id n o t est ab li sh that h e w o u ld b e p erse cu ted o n return beca us e he l eftC hi na i l l egal l y , and H uang has notci t ed anyevi dence of r ecor d t o t he4

c o n tra ry . A s th e B IA e x p lain e d , crim in a l p ro se c u tio n f o r v io latio n o f

g e n e ra lly appl i cabl e l aw s does notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on, atl eas ti n t he abs ence of s om e furt her s how i ng t hatH uang di d notm ake i n t hi s cas e. See Fengchu Chang v. I N S, 119 F. 3d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 6 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Second, H uang ar gues t hathe fa ces t or tur e i f r etur ned t o C hi na bec aus e he l eft ill e g a lly , an d th a t “[ t]h e re is n o in d ica tio n th e a g e n c yg a v e p ro p e r c o n sid e ra tio n to th is i s s ue. ” To t he contr ary , t he B I A s peci fi cal l ydi s cus s ed thi s i s s ue and c i t ed i t s ear l i er pr ece dentr egar di ng t he pena l t i es t hatr etur nees t o C hi na gene r al l yfac e fori l l egal d e p a rt u re . (B IA D e c . a t 2 ) ( c itin g In re J -W -S -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 1 8 5 , 1 9 4 -9 5 (B IA 2 0 0 7 )) . A nd once a gai n, H uang has notci t ed anyevi dence of r ecor d compel l i ng t he conc l us i on t hathe l i kel yw i l l be t or tur e on r etur n. Fi nal l y , H uang ar gues t hatt he B I A err ed i n concl udi ng t hathe had nots uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on i n C hi na. T he B I A concl uded, and w e agr ee, t hatH uang’ s br i ef det ent i on and the bea t i ng— forw hi ch he di d nots eek medi cal at t ent i on and w hi ch he des cr i bed as “nott hatbad”— w er e nots uffi ci ent l yextr eme t o r i s e t o t he l evel of p e rse c u tio n . S e e , e.g ., K ib in d a v . A tt’yG e n ., 4 7 7 F 3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 -2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (s in g le d e ten tio n a n d b e a tin g re q u irin g stitch e s a n d lea v in g sc a r w e re n o t “s e v e re e n o u g h to cons t i tut e per s ecut i on underours t r i ngents t andar d”) ; C ai L uan C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F . 3d 22 1, 22 3, 23 4-35 (3d C i r. 20 04 ) ( beati ng byC hinese offi ci al s “w i t h st i cks” in s u f f ic ie n tly se v e re w h e re it w a s n e v e r c la im e d to h a v e re q u ir e d m e d ic a l a tte n tio n ).W e not e, as w e di d i n G uang Li n- Z heng, t hats pous es of per s ons w ho have be en 2 per s ecut ed undercoer ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es r emai n el i gi bl e forder i vat i ve as y l um under8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 3) ( A ) . See G uang Li n- Z heng, 557 F. 3d at157. 5 H u an g d o es n o t dir ec tl ytake issue w ith that co n clus ion . Instea d , h e a rgu es th at th e B IA fai l ed t o cons i der“al l ” of the per s ecut i on he s uffe r ed bec aus e the bea t i ng t ook pl ace w hi l e hi s w i fe w as bei ng t aken f ora for ce a bor t i on. T he B I A , how ever , cl ear l yw as aw ar e of the cont extof the bea t i ng, and i tpr oper l yexpl ai ned thatt he per s ecut i on of one s pous e underC hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es no l ongeri s deemed t o be per s ecut i on of the o ther sp o u se. S ee G u an g L in-Z h en g v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 5 7 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 6 -57 (3d C ir . 2009) . H uang w as r equi r ed t o s how t hathe w as per s ecut ed per s onal l y , w hi ch, as expl ai ned above , he di d notdo. W e s ym pathi ze w i t h H uang forhavi ng under gone w hat n o d o u b t w as a d istressing ev en t, b u t he h as p rov ided n o b asis to d istu rb th e B IA ’s concl us i on t hati tw as notextr eme enough t o r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. 2 Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.