2006 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 2-6-2006 

# D ong 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 . 04-4473

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_2006

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 2006 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 " D on g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1638. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1638Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has be en substituted for for mer Attorney

General * J ohn Ashcrof

t, one of the original respondents in this case , pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c). 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. 04- 4473

__________ Z E NG C HE NG DON G,

Pet i t i oner v. AL BE RT O GONZ AL E S , AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF * TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R e sp o n d e n t.

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on ForR evi ew fr om a Fi nal O r der of T he B oard of

Im m i grat i on A pp eal s A G E N G Y N O . A 70- 892- 643

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o L A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary9, 2006Honora ble Dickinson R. Debevoise, Senior District Judg e for the District of New ** J ersey , sitti ngby

designation. 2 ____________________________________ B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and D E B E V O I SE , Seni orD i s tr i ctC our tJ udge ** ( Fi l ed: February6, 2006)

____________________________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________________________ D E B E V O I SE , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge Z eng C heng D ong pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the dec i s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s cl ai m s foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) pr es i di ng overD ong’ s cas e deni ed thes e cl ai m s bas ed on herdet erm i nat i on thatD ong w as not c re d ib le. T h e B IA a f

f irm e d th e d e c isio n w ith o u t o p in io n . B e c a u se th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory T her e ar e manyi ncons i s t enci es i n D ong’ s r eci t al of the eve nt s form i ng the bas i s of hi s cl ai m s as theyar e s etfor th i n hi s 1- 589 as y l um appl i cat i on form , hi s aff i davi tthatImmigration Judg e Malloy, who issued the dec ision in this case, did not conduc t the 1 Marc h 10, 2000 merits hearing; rather she re lied upon a tra

nscript. Judg e Malloy

conducte d an adjourne d session of the hea ringheld on April 1, 2002 at whic h the asylum officer testified. 3 acc om pani ed the 1- 589 For m and hi s t es t i m ony . A s t art i ng poi nti s the ac countD ong gave i n hi s t es t i m onyon di r ectexami nat i on befor e the I J w ho conduct ed the M ar ch 10, 2 0 0 0 m e r i t s h e a r i n g . A s r e c i t e d i n th a tt e s t i m o n y: 1 D o n g w a s b o rn in 1 9 5 6 in F u z h o u P ro v in c e in th e P e o p le ’s R e p u b lic o f C h in a . H i s w i fe w as bor n i n 1957 i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. T heybegan l i vi ng t ogetheri n D ece m ber 1977, butthei rm arr i age w as notr egi s t er ed unt i l N ovember , 1980 beca us e theyhad bee n under age. B efor e thatdat e theyhad had a boy , and atthe t i m e of r egi s tr at i on the w i fe w as t ol d thats he w oul d have t o have a n I U D i ns ert ed. B eca us e D ong and hi s w i fe w ant ed more chi l dr en, theyhad the I U D r emoved bya pr i vat e doct or . T her eaf t erthe w i fe b e c a m e p re g n a n t w ith a s e c o n d c h ild , a d e v e lo p m e n t th e yd is c o v e re d in F e b ru a ry 1 9 8 2 . T he s econd c hi l d w as born on D ece m ber28, 1982. S o m e o n e re p o rte d th e b irth to o f f icia ls o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. O f

f ice rs c a m e to D ong’ s hom e and t ol d hi s w i fe s he w oul d have t o go fora s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e. T hey u s e d a ro p e to tie h e r h a n d s , p u t h e r i n a c a r a n d to o k h e r t o a h o s p ita l f o r t h e s te ri liz a tio n . B efor e the pr ocedur e bega n, the w i fe a s ked i f s he coul d us e the r es tr oom . She pr ocee ded to th e re stro o m a n d w h e n so d o in g sh e e sc a p e d u n d e tec ted f ro m th e h o sp ital. S h e ra n to the vi l l age of

N i ant ong w her e s he cont i nued t o l i ve w hi l e D ong w or ked i n the co n stru cti o n b u sine ss in F u zh o u C ity . A thir d ch il d w as b o rn to the c o u p le i n F eb rua ry4

1984 i n the vi l l age of

N i ant ong. O n M ay4, 1984 D ong and hi s w i fe r eturned t o hi s hom et ow n. T he fol l ow i ng day offi ci al s came t o hi s hom e and t ook hi s w i fe a w ayfora s ucce s s ful s t er i l i zat i on. H e and h is w if e w e re f in e d 2 0 0 0 yu a n ; h e c o u ld n o t re g iste r th e c h ild in th e h o u se h o ld re g istra tio n b o o k b e c a u se it w a s a n e x c e ss iv e b irth , an d f o r th e sa m e re a so n th e yh a d to p a yh ig h e r f

e e s f o r sc h o o l. D ong arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es on A ugus t20, 1992 vi a M exi co. A s ked w hyhe w ai t ed unt i l 1992 and w hyhe chos e the U ni t ed St at es , D ong r es ponded bec aus e of the l i fes ty l e and f

i nanci al r eas ons and thati tw as verydi ffi cul tt o s ur vi ve i n C hi na. O n J une 17, 1993 D ong fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on i n w hi ch he c l ai m ed t o have b e e n m istre a ted in C h in a o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o lit ica l o p in io n . T h e d e tails s e t f o rth in th is appl i cat i on di ffe r ed s ubs t ant i al l yfr om the ac countD ong gave on hi s di r ectexami nat i on, in c lu d in g th e sta tem e n t th a t af ter th e o f f icia l lea rn e d o f

th e th ird b irth th e yf

o rc e d h im to u n d e rg o s te ri liz a tio n . H is b a s is f o r r e lie f w a s th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic y . O n J anuary14, 1997 an as y l um offi ceri nt ervi ew ed D ong. H e s t at ed thathe fe ar ed p erse cu ti o n in C h ina o n ac co u n t of h is r eli g ion an d b ec au se h e o p p o sed the g o v ern m en t’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . I n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on he deni ed thathe had e verbeen arr es t ed, buthe i nform ed the as y l um offi certhathe had be en arr es t ed and de t ai ned for thr ee da y s beca us e of hi s part i ci pat i on i n r el i gi ous gather i ngs . W hen the as y l um offi cer a sk e d D o n g a b o u t h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , D o n g a c k n o w led g e d th a t ith a d b e e n re a d to5

hi m and thati tw as truthful . H e expl ai ned the abs ence of a r efe r ence t o r el i gi ous p e rse c u tio n a s a f

a ilu re o n th e p a rt o f

th e tra v e l ag e n t to in c lu d e it. O n J anuary15, 1997 the I N S pl ace d D ong i n deport at i on pr ocee di ngs , char gi ng him w i th en t eri ng the U nit ed S t at es w i tho ut i nspecti on . H e adm i t t ed the al l egati on s, conce ded hi s deport abi l i tyand announc ed hi s i nt ent i on t o s eek a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of depor t at i on, and C A T pr ot ect i on. H e w as the onl yw i tnes s t o t es t i fyathi s M ar ch 10, 2000 m er i t s hear i ng, atw hi ch he t es t i fi ed as des cr i bed above . H i s t es t i m ony , i ncl udi ng th a t w h ich w a s d e v e lo p e d o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , v a rie d c o n sid e ra b lyf ro m h is s tate m e n ts t o the as y l um offi cer . D ong di s avow ed ce r t ai n of hi s s t at ement s t o the as y l um offi cerand at tri bu t ed som e dis crepancies t o p ossi ble i nterpret er m i st akes. T he as y l um offi cerw as cal l ed t o t es t i fyatan adj ourned A pr i l 1, 2002 hear i ng. She t es t i fi ed thats he ques t i oned D ong abouthi s as y l um appl i cat i on and thathe made no s ubs t ant i ve cha nges i n i tand af fi r m ed thati t s cont ent s w er e true. She fur thert es t i fi ed thats he found D ong notcr edi bl e and hi s s t orycontr adi ct oryand conf us i ng. D ong fai l ed t o fi l e a c orr ect i ve af

fi davi ti n s pi t e of s ever al oppor tuni t i es t o do s o. O n O ct ober21, 2002, the I J deni ed D ong’ s as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T appl i cat i ons . H eropi ni on i ncl uded a c om pr ehens i ve s um m aryof D ong’ s t es t i m ony on di r ectand cr os s - exami nat i on, det ai l i ng hi s att empt s t o expl ai n the numer ous i ncons i s t enci es i n t he ac count s he had gi ven i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on and s uppor t i ng af fid av it , in h is st atem en t t o the a sy lum o ff icer an d in h is he aring test im o n y . T h e IJ6

o b s e r v e d th a t“ th e c o u r th a s b e f o r e i tth r e e v e r s i o n s o f

r e s p o n d e n t ’ s c l a i m f

o ra s y l u m” ( A. 39) . T he ac countr eci t ed i n t he af fi davi ts ubm i t t ed w i th D ong’ s appl i cat i on and atvar i ous pr ocee di ngs thatfol l ow ed cons t i tut ed one ve r s i on. H ow ever , the I J di d notgi ve much w ei ghtt o i tbeca us e i t“does s eem t o be l acki ng i n det ai l s and does have a gl ar i ng err or w her e i ts t at es thatr es pondentw as s t er i l i zed a nd thaterr orw as poi nt ed outby resp o n d en t’ s att o rne yat th e f ir st m aster ca lend ar.” (A . 4 1 -42 ). T he I J r el i ed on the othertw o ver s i ons of D ong’ s cl ai m s , hi s courtr oom t es t i m ony and the t es t i m onypr ovi ded atthe as y l um i nt ervi ew . She not ed a s er i es of contr adi ct i ons a n d in c o n sis ten c ies b e tw e e n th e se tw o v e rsio n s. “ F o r e x a m p le, [ ]sta tin g th a t h e lef t in 1982 forthe fa m i l ypl anni ng r eas ons and then s t at i ng thathe l eftbeca us e of the r el i gi ous cr ackdow n. I tw as i nt er es t i ng t o s ee r es pondent ’ s att empt s t o r econc i l e both of the i ncons i s t entans w er s . A nd thi s w as r epea t ed overand overagai n thr oughoutthe resp o n d en t’ s testi m o n y . ” (A . 4 5 ). T he I J found thatD ong fai l ed t o pr oduce doc um ent s t o s how thathi s w i fe ha d b ee n steri li ze d o r th at an IU D w as in serted , fin d ing that the x -ray s D o n g su b m itted w ere nots how n t o por tr ayhi s w i fe. T he I J not ed thatD ong “al s o fai l ed t o s ubm i tanyevi dence thathe i s a mem berof the C hr i s t i an chur ch, thathe att ends chur ch, thathe hol ds any part i cul arr el i gi ous bel i efs ” ( A . 46) , concl udi ng “[t ] her e i s nothi ng i n hi s appl i cat i on or anydocument s s ubm i t t ed thatw oul d demonstr at e thatr es pondentw oul d be per s ecut ed for an yreli g iou s rea so n s. ” (A . 4 7 ).7

B as ed on the l ack of

corr obor at i ve evi dence and bec aus e of the numer ous i ncons i s t enci es i n D ong’ s t es t i m ony , the I J hel d thatD ong had notes t abl i s hed thathe had s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on orthathe w oul d s uffe rfutur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof anyof th e f iv e e n u m e ra ted g ro u n d s a n d th a t, th e re f o re , h e h a d f

a iled to e sta b lish h is e lig ib ili ty foras y l um . I tfol l ow ed thatD ong had al s o fai l ed t o es t abl i s h hi s el i gi bi l i tyfor w i thhol di ng of deport at i on t o t he Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na. Fi nal l y , the I J hel d that D o n g h a d f

a iled to e sta b lish th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d f o r a n yre a so n sh o u ld h e re tu rn to th a tc o u n trya n d th u s h a d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h h i s e l i g i b i l i tyf o rr e l i e f u n d e rth e CA T. D o n g p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s ord er a ff irm ing w ith o u t op inion the IJ’s deci s i on. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew Un d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) , we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a ra p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w f

r o m a fin al ord er o f th e B IA . W h en the B IA af firm s an IJ w ith o u t op inion , “w e re v iew the IJ’s o p inion an d scru ti n ize it s rea so n ing . ” S m ri k o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 7 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). In a sy lu m c a se s, w e m u st u p h o ld the age ncy ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs i f theyar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . Si ngh- K aurv. A s hcr oft , 385 F. 3d 293, 296 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T hati s , the deni al of as y l um “ca n be re v e rse d o n lyif

th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted b y[ th e P e tit io n e r] w a s s u c h th a t a r e a so n a b le fac t fi nderw oul d have t o concl ude thatthe r equi s i t e fe arof per s ecut i on exi s t ed. ” I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ; s ee a l s o A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477,8

483- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[T] he [a gency ] ’ s fi ndi ng m us tbe uphel d unl es s the evi dence not onl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ”) . D eni al s of appl i cat i ons for w ith h o ld in g o f

d e p o rt a tio n a re a ls o re v ie w e d u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t. M el end ez v. U nit ed S t at es D ept. of Just i ce, 92 6 F . 2d 21 1, 21 8 (2d C i r. 19 91 ). A dv ers e cre d ibil ityd eterm ination s, li k e o ther f ac tual fin d ing s in im m igrati o n p roc ee d ing s, are r evi ew ed underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. M ul anga v. A s hcr oft , 349 F. 3d 123, 1 3 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I I I . D i s cus s i on T he A t t orneyG ener al and hi s del egat es m aygr antas y l um t o anyal i en w ho q u a lif ie s a s a re f

u g e e u n d e r t h e Im m ig ra tio n & N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ). 8 U .S .C . § 1158( b) ( 1) . A r efuge e i s an al i en w ho i s “unabl e orunw i l l i ng” t o r eturn t o hi s orher countryof or i gi n “bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42( A ) . “A l i ens have the bur den of s uppor t i ng thei ras y l um c la im s th ro u g h c re d ib le te s tim o n y .” G a o v . A s h c ro f t, 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). “Test i m ony , byi t s el f, i s s uffi ci entt o m eetthi s bur den, i f ‘ cr edi bl e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (a )). T o e sta b lish e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m , an a p p lica n t m u st d e m o n stra te p a st p e rse c u tio n b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n th a t is b o th s ubj ect i vel yand obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. L ukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 177 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).9

W ith h o ld in g o f

d e p o rt a tio n is a v a ila b le u n d e r I N A s e c tio n 2 4 1 (b )( 3 ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 ). T h a t se c tio n p ro v id e s th a t “th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yn o t re m o v e a n a lien to a countryi f the A t t orneyG ener al deci des thatthe al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be th r e a t e n e d i n s u c h c o u n tr y o n a c c o u n to f th e a l i e n ’ s r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, me mb e r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ; s e e a l s o I NS v. S t evic, 46 7 U . S . 40 7, 41 1 (198 4). In order t o b e el i gibl e for that r el i ef, an ali en m ust d e m o n stra te “ a c lea r p ro b a b ili ty ” o f p e rse c u tio n , i. e ., a sh o w in g th a t itis “ m o re lik e ly than not ” he w i l l be per s ecut ed upon r eturn t o hi s hom e country . I N S v. C ar dozaF o n sec a, 48 0 U . S . 4 2 1 , 4 2 9 , 4 4 8 (19 8 7 ); L i W u L in v . IN S , 2 3 8 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 4 (3d C ir . 2001) ; 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) ( 2001) . B eca us e thi s s t andar d i s m or e s tr i ngentthan the “w el l - founded f

ear ” of pe r s ecut i on s t andar d r equi r ed foras y l um , i tfol l ow s thatan al i en w ho fai l s t o demonstr at e el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um al s o fai l s t o s at i s fythe more s tr i ngent req u ir em en ts of

w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. Jan u siak v . IN S , 9 4 7 F . 2 d 4 6 , 4 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). D ong’ s pr i nci pal gr ound foras y l um i s pas tper s ecut i on and a w el l - founded f earof persecut i on on accou nt of hi s opp osi t i on t o h i s coun try ’s fam i l yplanni ng po l i ci es, cul m i nat i ng i n t he s t er i l i zat i on of hi s w i fe. H e r el i es on §601( a) of the Sept ember30, 1996 I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996, enac t ed as D i vi s i on C of the D epart m ent s of C om m er ce, J us t i ce, and St at e, the J udi ci aryand R el at ed A genci es A ppr opr i at i ons A ctof 1997, Pub. L . N o. 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009- 689 ( 1996) (“I IR IR A ”). S ect i on 60 1(a) of the II R IR A provides:10 Forpurpos es of det erm i nat i ons underthi s A ct , a per s on w ho has been for ced t o aborta pr egnanc yort o under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orfor o th e r re sis tan c e to c o e rc iv e p o p u latio n c o n tro l p ro g ra m , sh a ll b e d e e m e d to have be en per s ecut ed on ac countof pol i t i cal opi ni on, and a pe r s on w ho has a w el l founded f

earthathe ors he w i l l be for ced t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e ors ubj ectt o per s ecut i on fors uch fa i l ur e, r efus al , orr es i s t ance s hal l be dee m ed t o have a w el l founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on. Si t t i ng en banc , the B I A appl i ed thi s pr ovi s i on t o ci r cumst ance s r emar kabl ys i m i l ar t o thos e w hi ch pr evai l i n t he i ns t antcas e. M att erof C - Y - Z , B I A I nt er i m D eci s i on 3319 ( J une 4, 1997) . T he pet i t i oner , a ci t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, w as m arr i ed i n C hi na i n 1986 and w as the fa therof thr ee c hi l dr en, the l as ta s on born i n 1991. H e and h is w if e w e re o p p o se d to C h in a ’s f a m ilyp lan n in g re q u ire m e n ts. A f ter th e b irth o f

h is fi r s tchi l d, hi s w i fe w as for ced t o obt ai n an I U D . T he devi ce w as r emoved and w hen the w i fe be came pr egnantagai n s he w as or der ed t o under go an abort i on. She hi d unt i l s he del i ver ed a thi r d chi l d, aft erw hi ch s he w as s t er i l i zed a gai ns therw i l l . Pet i t i onerl eft C h in a e ig h te e n m o n th s la te r, a rr iv e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 9 3 a n d a p p lie d f o r a s y lu m . R ever s i ng an I J deci s i on thatdi d notm ake a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng but d e n ied a sy lu m , the B IA m a jo rityo p in io n h e ld a s f

o llo w s: i) c iti n g its p rio r d e c isio n in M att erof X - P- T , B I A I nt er i m D eci s i on 3299 ( D ec. 3, 1996) , an al i en w ho has been for ced t o aborta pr egnanc yort o under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been persecut ed fo r r esi st ance to a coerci ve p op ulat i on con trol program , has suffered p ast per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on and qual i fi es as a r efuge e w i thi n the amended11

defi ni t i on of thatt erm under§ 101( a) ( 42) of the A ct ; i i ) the s pous e of a w om an w ho has been forced to und ergo an abo rt i on or st eri l i zat i on proced ure can ther ebyest abli sh past per s ecut i on; i i i ) a s pous e havi ng adequa t el yes t abl i s hed thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on is en ti tl ed to the reg u lat o ryp resu m p ti o n that h e h as a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture persecut i on un der 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b) (1) ; i v) the ali en w ho has t hu s est abli shed p ast p erse cu ti o n d o es n o t hav e the ad d it ion al bu rde n o f p rov ing a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on byevi dence thatthe i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on w as carr i ed outi n s uch a w ayas t o amount t o an “a tr oci ous form ” of pe r s ecut i on; r ather“[t ] he r egul at orypr es um pt i on m aybe r ebutt ed onl ybya s how i ng, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , thats i nce the t i m e the per s ecut i on occurr ed, condi t i ons i n the appl i cant ’ s countryhave c hanged t o s uch an ext entthatthe appl i cantno l ongerhas a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on i f he r eturned t o hi s hom e countr y . ” The B I A concl uded thatthe appl i canthad demonstr at ed el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um and w i thhol di ng of deport at i on. T h e m a jo ri ty o p in io n in In re C -Y -Z w a s a c c o m p a n ie d b ya c o n c u rr in g o p in io n , a concurr i ng and di s s ent i ng opi ni on, and a di s s ent i ng opi ni on. O urcourthas notexpr es s ed an o p inion ab o u t certai n o f th e B IA ’s ho lding s. N ev erthe less, assu m ing In re C -Y -Z g o v e rn s th e in sta n t ca se , the IJ’ s c re d ib ili tyf in d in g p re c lu d e s a p p ly in g In re C -Y -Z to D ong. Fi ndi ng D ong’ s t es t i m onyunbel i evabl e, the I J di d notcr edi thi s acc ount , or a c c o u n ts, o f

h is w if e ’s s u b jec tio n to a n IU D o r f

o rc e d ste riliza tio n . W ith o u t cr e d ib le ev iden ce that the w ife w as su b jected to tho se p roc ed u res, th ere is no b asis fo r D o n g ’sWe note that the re cord disclose s that Dong ’s wifeand thre e children continue to re side 2 in China, apparently

without difficulty , and that all thre e children attend school a nd have be en 12 c l a i m of a s y l u m, wi th h o l d i n g o f d e p o r t a t i o n o rr e l i e f

u n d e rth e CA T. D ong chal l enges the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, ar gui ng thatanyi ncons i s t enci es in h is te s tim o n yw e re m in o r o r c o n s titu te d m in o r o m is s io n s re la tin g to u n im p o rt a n t f a c ts . A s s uch, D ong cont ends , theyw i l l nots uppor tan adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. A l var adoC aril lo v . IN S , 2 5 1 F . 3 d 4 4 , 5 6 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); O so ri o v . IN S , 9 9 F . 3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 1 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). W e have r evi ew ed thi s pr ocee di ng i n w hi ch D ong pr ovi ded i nform at i on. T he g lari n g inco n sist en cies a n d co n tr ad ict ion s p rov ide s u b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe IJ’s fi ndi ng thatD ong w as notcr edi bl e. T hes e i ncons i s t enci es and contr adi ct i ons appea r ed no ton l yi n h i s accou nts of the even t s r el at i ng t o the bi rth o f t hree chil dren, theyal so appea r ed i n hi s bel at ed cl ai m thathe w as per s ecut ed forhi s r el i gi ous bel i efs . T he document aryevi dence fai l s t o r emedythe fa i l ur e of pr oof. I V . C oncl usi on T her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, and cons equent l yD ong has fai l ed t o pr oduce s uffi ci entcr edi bl e evi dence t o es t abl i s h ei ther p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a n o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le, w e ll - fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n in C hi na. D ong does nots er i ous l yeven a r gue i n hi s pet i t i on thatther e ar e s ubs t ant i al gr ounds forbel i evi ng that , w er e he r eturned t o C hi na, he w oul d be i n dangerof bei ng s u b je c te d to to rt u re . W e f in d n o e rr o r i n th e B IA ’s a f f ir m in g th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . 2reg istered in the household reg istry since 1985. 13 C ons equent l yw e w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on.