UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHANMIN LIU,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 96-1792

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-370-027)

Submitted: December 2, 1997

Decided: December 24, 1997

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Philemina McNeill Jones, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Shanmin Liu petitions for review of a final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board), denying his application for asylum and

withholding of deportation. Because substantial evidence supports the

Board's decision, we deny the petition.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney

General, in her discretion, to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a) (1994). The Act defines a refugee as a person unwilling or

unable to return to his native country "because of persecution or a

well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (1994); see also M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d

304, 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc).

The "well-founded fear of persecution" standard contains both a

subjective and an objective component. An applicant may satisfy the

subjective element by presenting "`candid, credible, and sincere testimony' demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution." BerroteranMelendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting

Blanco-Comarribas v. INS, 830 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1987)). We

review the credibility findings of the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the

Board for substantial evidence. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78

(4th Cir. 1989) (citing Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir.

1987); Saballo-Cortez v. INS, 761 F.2d 1259, 1262 (9th Cir. 1984)).

Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Turcios, 821 F.2d at

1398. A reviewing court gives credibility determinations substantial

deference provided they are supported by "specific, cogent reason[s]"

for the disbelief. Figeroa, 886 F.2d at 78 (quoting Turcios, 821 F.2d

at 1399).

The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than

that for granting asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,

431-32 (1987). To qualify for withholding of deportation, an applicant must demonstrate a "clear probability of persecution." Id. at 430.

We accord the Board all possible deference. See Huaman-Cornelio v.

 2
Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992).

The decision may be "reversed only if the evidence presented by [Liu]

was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the

requisite fear of persecution existed." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 481 (1992).

After conceding deportability for having entered the United States

without inspection in March 1990, Liu applied for asylum, withholding of deportation, and alternatively, voluntary departure based on his

fear of persecution if he returned to the People's Republic of China

(China). Evidence before the IJ established that Liu, a native and citizen of China, is a married male. He testified that he favored the

Democracy Movement, a political party, in China because of his

opposition to corruption of the Chinese Communist Party. He claimed

that because of his pro-democracy views, and the actions he took in

manifestation of those views, Chinese authorities summoned him to

respond to charges of "counter revolutionary propaganda and incitement." He stated that a friend advised him that he would be receiving

a summons. He testified that he has not seen his wife since he left his

home in December 1989, in order to avoid receiving the summons.

He did not report to authorities as directed by the summons because

he believed he would be arrested if he reported. At his deportation

hearing, he presented a document allegedly constituting the Chinese

summons. He also presented newspaper articles describing the sentences political dissidents in China have received. He argued that

because these persons, who were engaged in activities similar to his

own, were punished, he has a well founded basis to fear persecution.

He also argued that he faces possible sterilization in China because

he already has one child, a male child. He alleged that while his wife

was pregnant after the male child, he received notices to report for a

sterilization operation, which were issued to him by his employer. He

presented copies of these alleged notices.

The IJ determined that Liu did not present a credible claim of a fear

of persecution in China. On appeal, the Board also did not find Liu

credible and held that Liu failed to demonstrate past persecution or

the requisite fear of future persecution for asylum or withholding of

deportation. Thus, the Board dismissed Liu's appeal. In his petition

 3
for review, Liu challenges the IJ's and Board's credibility determinations.

We find that the IJ and the Board supported their credibility determinations with specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Liu. See

Figeroa, 886 F.2d at 78. Liu presented a Chinese document which

allegedly constitutes a Chinese summons to bolster his claim that he

was engaged in political activities for which he is being sought by the

Chinese authorities. Liu also presented two documents which purport

to impose penalties based on his violation of national family planning

policies; the documents were allegedly issued by his employer. The

IJ and the Board were not convinced of the validity of the summons

or the fine notification documents. The Board noted that, although the

summons was submitted to the Forensic Document Laboratory of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service for evaluation, that institution

could not provide conclusive information as to its validity. The Board

also cited a report, however, which states that documentation from

China, particularly from the Fuzhou area from which Liu comes, is

marked by widespread fabrication and fraud. The same report also

states that documents imposing penalties for family planning violations are only issued by family planning units and documents which

were allegedly issued by other sources are fraudulent.

The Board and the IJ also noted that Liu arrived in the United

States in 1990 but did not apply for asylum until 1992 because his

counsel advised him that his case was not ready because he did not

have the necessary documentation. The Board reasoned that it was

likely that Liu obtained the above three documents, on which he bases

his claims, in order to apply for asylum, raising the concern that these

documents were fabricated to provide evidence in support of Liu's

application for asylum.

Other adverse credibility findings made by the IJ and the Board

concerned Liu's claim that he left his wife while she was six months

pregnant and was unsuccessful in establishing any communication

with her until June 1992, when he allegedly learned that her pregnancy had resulted in a miscarriage. The IJ concluded that it was

implausible and inconceivable that Liu would not have been successful in finding some means to communicate with his wife to find out

about the birth of their expected baby. Liu testified that he did not

 4
send any support of any kind to his wife and child until after July

1992. Since then, he testified, he has found friends who have traveled

to China who have taken funds to his wife on a regular basis. He has

done this twice a year since July 1992. Liu did not explain why he

couldn't do this before July 1992. The Board also reasoned that Liu's

representation that he did not have contact with his wife for years further undermined his credibility because the individual who made contact with Liu's wife on his behalf, a person who lived in the United

States, offered no statement or testimony to bolster Liu's account of

events.

Lastly, the Board noted that other testimony that undermined Liu's

credibility concerned the fact that he applied for a Chinese passport

in 1993 and had the intention of returning there to visit his family, but

then he testified that he no longer had the intention to travel to China

because things had changed. He did not offer a cogent explanation of

what had changed; he only stated that the Chinese authorities were

still investigating his case.

As the Board stated, even assuming the family planning related

notices are authentic, Liu is not entitled to relief on that basis because

severe government sanctions in response to an alien's violations of his

country's population control policy does not necessarily constitute

persecution or create a well-founded fear of persecution. See Chen

Zhou Chai v. Carroll, 48 F.3d 1331, 1335-36 (4th Cir. 1995). The

asylum applicant must demonstrate that any government action taken

against him or her was for a reason other than the mere enforcement

of its population control policies. Id. at 1336. Liu did not prove, nor

does the record disclose, that the family planning policies were selectively enforced against him because of his race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Id.

As Liu has not established entitlement to asylum, he cannot meet

the higher standard for withholding of deportation. We accordingly

deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 5