2005 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

8-15-2005 

# Z he ng v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3008

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Z he n g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 606. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/606P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E 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- 3008

____________________ QUN Z HE NG,
P et i t i oner

v. AL BE RT O GONZ AL E S , AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________ 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 ( B oar d N o. A 78- 864- 293)

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

J une 30, 2005 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , B A R R Y a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges
O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y20, 2005
CH AR L E S CH RI S T OP HE ALE KSANDER B

. M I LCH M E E R M. M

. RA HM AN Ch r i s t o p h e & A s s o c i a t e s , P

. C. 67 W al l St r eet , Sui t e 210 N ew Y or k, N Y 10005 A t t or neys f

orP et i t i oner2 PETE R D

. KEI SLER A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al C i vi l D i vi s i on LI NDA W ERNE RY J ESS I CA DU NSA Y SI LVER GR EGO RY B. FRI EL D epart m entof J us t i ce B en Fr ankl i n St at i on P. O

. B ox 14403 W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20044- 4403 A t t or neys f

orR es pondent

________________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

________________________ B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge.
T hi s i s a pet i t i on fo r re v iew byQ un Z heng, a nat i ve and ci t i zen of

C hi na, of a de ci s i on byt h e B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s (B IA ) aff

i r m i ng, w i t houtopi ni on, a dec i s i on byan I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ( I J ) d e n y i n g Zh e n g ’ s r e q u e s t s f o ra s y l um, w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der t he C on ven t i on A gainst T o rt u re ( C A T )

. B eca us e w e fi nd t hatt he I J ’ s deci s i on w as bas ed o n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , 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. I. Q u n Z h e n g , a lso k n o w n a s Z h a o X in Z h u , w a s b o rn in C hi na i n 1989. H e cl ai m s t hathi s m ot herw as for ci b l ys t er i l i zed s hor t l yaft ergi vi ng bi r t h t o hi m , beca us e he w as hert hi r d chi l d and s he had thus vi ol at ed C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . H i s father lef t C h in a in 1 9 9 2 , an d h is m o th e r in 1 9 9 7 , lea v in g Z h e n g w ith h is gr andpar ent s . B ot h of Z heng’ s par ent s came t o t he U ni t ed St at es a n d p e tit io n e d f

o r a sy lu m . T h e ir p e tit io n s w e re d e n ied , alth o u g h it a p p e a rs th a t th e yb o th re m a i n i n th e U n ite d S ta te s . See X iu J in W a n gv. B IA , 87 Fed. A ppx . 2 0 9 (2d C i r . 2004) ( unpubl i s hed su m m aryo rde r). Z heng cl ai m s t hat , i n A pr i l 2002, he w r ot e an e s s aycal l ed3 “ M yM o th e r” f

o r a sc h o o l as sig n m e n t. Z h e n g ’s e ss a yw a s a lleg e d ly h igh lycrit ical of

the C h ines e g o v ern m en t, an d o f h is m o ther’s f o r c i b l e s t e r i l i z a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o Z h e n g , i n r e a c t i o n t o t h i s e s s a y, t he pr i nci pal of hi s s chool demanded t hatZ heng w r i t e a “sel fc riticism ” re n o u n c in g it. If h e f a iled to d o so , h e c laim s, h e w o u ld be s entt o a j uveni l e r e- educa t i on camp. Z h e n g re late s th a t th e p rin c ip a l se n t h im h o m e to w rite h is se lf -c riticism , an d th a t, af ter d isc u ss in g th e iss u e w it h h is g r a n d p a r e n t s , h e d e c i d e d t o g o i n t o h i d i n g a t h i s u n c l e ’ s h o u s e . He d id so so m e f

iv e to e ig h t d a y s la ter , n e v e r h a v in g re tu rn e d to sc h o o l. A t so m e p o in t af ter th is, h is g r a n d m o th e r c a m e to v isit Z h eng i n hi di ng. She al l egedl yt ol d hi m t hatt he pr i nci pal of the s chool had ca l l ed herand tol d hert hati f Zheng w as found he w oul d be s entt o t he j uveni l e r e- educa t i on depart m ent

. She th e re f o re c o n tac ted sm u g g ler s to g e t Z h e n g to th e U n ited S tate s to be reun i t ed w i t h h i s parent s. A ft er abou ta w eek at h i s uncle’ s, Zh e n g l e f

twi t h a s mu g g l e r , wh o o b t a i n e d f a l s e d o c u me n t s f

o rh i m. A ft ers t ay i ng i n a hot el w i t h t he s m uggl er for s om e t i m e, he l eftfor A m er i ca, and arr i ved i n C hi cago on J une 10, 2002. Z h e n g w a s s t o p p e d a tt h e a i rp o r ta n d t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y. Z heng w as r el eas ed fr om cus t ody i n A ugus t2002, and w entt o l i ve w i t h h is mot heri n N ew J er s ey . I n N ovember 2002, an I J gr ant ed a cha nge of ve nue t o N ew ark. B efor e the I J , Z heng conc eded r emovabi l i t yand appl i ed for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T

. A n as y l um hear i ng w as hel d on A pr i l 2, 2 0 0 3 , i n Ne wa r k

. Zh e n g p r e s e nt e d h i s o wn t e s t i mo n ya n d s o me document aryevi dence , i ncl udi ng a r ew r i t t en copyof hi s “M y M o ther” essa y(he d id n o t hav e a co p yo f th e o ri g inal) an d let ters f r o m t w o s c h o o l f

r i e n d s c o r r o b o r a t i n g s o m e a s p e c t s o f h i s s t o r y. A tt he cl os e of t he hear i ng, t he IJ r ender ed an or al deci s i on. H e f o u n d th a t, i f

tru e , Z h e n g ’s a lleg a tio n s w o u ld m a k e o u t a c laim foras y l um , i n t hat he al l eged a fea r of per s ecut i on bas ed on “other re s is ta n c e ” to C h in a ’s f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic y . See 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ). B u t th e IJ d e ter m in e d th a t Z h e n g h a d n o t m e t h is bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng per s ecut i on beca us e hi s t es t i m onyw as not cr edi bl e. H e ther efor e deni ed as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and CA T p r o t e c t i o n b a s e d o n p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n . He a l s o d e n i e d CA T r el i ef ba s ed o n Z h eng’s al l eged f earthat , i f he r etur ned t o C hi na, h e w o u l d b e t o r tu r e d f

o rl e a v i n g C h i n a i l l e g a l l y. T he B I A aff

i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on, l eavi ng t he I J ’ s opi ni onCon gre ss h a s re c e ntly revis e d thi s judic ia lly c re ate d s tand ard

to 1 a ll o w a trier o f f

a c t to f in d a lac k o f c r e d ib il it y b a s e d on any i n c o n s i s t e n c y o r

f a l s e h o o d , “ w i th o utr e g ard t o wh e th e r

ani n c o n s i s t e n c y, inaccurac y , or falsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a pplicant’s claim.” Real ID Act of 2005, § 101( a)( 3), Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 303, to bec od ifi e d a t 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (B )( i ii). This provision, however, applies only

to applications for asylum made afte r the e ffe ctive dateof th e R eal ID Act, see id. § 1 0 1 ( h ) ( 2 ) , an d s o d o e s n o t a p p ly to Z heng ’s case . 4 as t he fi nal agenc ydet er m i nat i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on over Z h e n g ’s tim e ly p e titio n f o r r e v ie w p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2

. II.
B eca us e the B I A aff

i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on, w e r evi ew t he IJ ’s o p in io n . D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc)

. T he st andar d of r evi ew i s the fa m i l i ar“s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” s t andar d: “[T] he admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s any r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude to th e c o n tra ry .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b ) ( 4 ) ( B ). A d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i ons ar e fa ctual fi ndi ngs s ubj ectt o s ubs t ant i al evi dence re v ie w . A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F

. 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). B u t c re d ib ility f

in d in g s m u s t b e g ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd , id ., and mustbe bas ed on i ncons i s t enci es and i m pr obabi li ti es thatgo to th e h e a rt o f

th e a s y lu m c la im , G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F

. 3d 266, 2 7 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 1
A.
T he I J found num er ous i ncons i s t enci es and i m pl aus i bi l i t i es i n Z heng’ s evi dence

. Z heng per s uas i vel y di s put es s ever al o f t he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs . M os tnot abl y , t he I J foun d it“ut t er l yi m pl aus i bl e” th a t th e p rin c ip a l w o u ld a llo w Z h e n g to re tu rn h o m e to w rite h is se lf -c riticism , rath e r th a n re q u ire h im to w rite it im m e d iate lyin h is offi ce. T he I J poi nt ed t o no bas i s i n t he r ecor d, o r i n l ogi c or e x p e rie n c e , fo r th is f

in d in g o f im p lau sib ili ty

. “ A d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i ons bas ed on spec ul at i on or conj ectur e, r athert han on evi dence i n t he re cor d, ar e r ever s i bl e, ” G ao , 299 F. 3d at272, and w e r ej ectt hi s concl us i on as pur e s pecul at i on.5 T h e IJ a ls o n o ted th a t Z h e n g ’s I -5 8 9 f o rm , p a rt o f

h is w ri t t en asy l um app l i cat i on , l i st s hi s address as his gran dp arent s’ hom et ow n fr om bi r t h unt i l J une 2002. T he IJ found t he l ack of any i ndi cat i on t hatZ heng l i ved w i t h hi s uncl e, or ot herw i s e i n hi di ng, im p o rta n t: “T h e f

a c t th a t h e liv e d a t th a t ad d re ss b e f o re c o m in g to t he U ni t ed St at es , and notatt he uncl e’ s pl ace , ors om ew her e el s e, i s veryr evea l i ng. I t cons t r i ct s [s i c] t he w hol e not i on of fl i ght

. ” The I J found it a “m aj ors i gni fi canti ncons i s t ency ” thatZ heng l i s t ed onl yt hi s one addr es s i n C hi na. Z heng ar gues t hatt hi s fi ndi ng amount s t o “no more t han a game of ‘ got cha’ w i t h a j uveni l e R es pondent

. ” Zheng i s a t eena ger w ho s peaks l i t t l e orno E ngl i s h; hi s m o ther rea d overt he I

- 589 for m befor e he s i gned i t , buthe appa r ent l ydi d not

. Fur t her m or e, as t he form as ks al i ens t o li st the i r“r es i dence s dur i ng t he l as tfi ve y ear s , ” i tw oul d notbe unr eas onabl e fo r Z heng t o om i tpl ace s w her e he s t ay ed i n hi di ng for no m or e t han a fe w w ee k s. T he om i s sion str i kes us as onl ya mi norerr or , and s uch “mi nor i ncons i s t enci es and mi noradmi s s i ons t hatr evea l not hi ng aboutan as y l um appl i cant ’ s fea r for hi s s afe t y ar e not an adequat e basi s for an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. ” G ao , 299 F. 3d at 272 (i n te r nal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I n s hor t , w e ar e t r oubl ed bys om e of the r eas ons under l y i ng th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g . N o n e th e les s, w e a re b o u n d to uphol d t he I J ’ s deci s i on i f i ti s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , a n d m a yd o s o e v e n if

w e re je c t s o m e o f

its b a s e s . See H

e C hun C h e n v . A sh c ro

ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 224- 25 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( fi ndi ng s ubs t ant i al evi dence for an adver s e cr edi bi l i t y d et er m i nat i on d e sp ite o u r “e x tre m e d isc o m f itu re ” w ith so m e o f

th e IJ’ s s p e c if

ic fin d ing s).
B.
In this case, t he m ost com pell i ng supp ort for t he IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on comes fr om t he s i m pl e i m pl aus i bi l i t yof Z h e n g ’s s to ry . Z h e n g ’s te stim o n y , h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , an d h is su p p o rt ing d o cu m en taryev iden ce all str o n g lysu p p o rtthe IJ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th is c a se “ is a ll a b o u t a you n g b o yw a n tin g to jo in hi s par ent s , ” ra t her t han about an opponent of C hi na’ s bi r t h contr ol pol i ci es fl eei ng governm ent al per s ecuti o n . T he copyof “M y M o t h e r ” i n t h e r e c o r d , whi c h Zh e n g a l l e g e d l y r e wr o t e fr om6 m emoryaft erarr i vi ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es , cr eat es the di s t i nct im p ression that itw as w ri tt en so lel yfo r asy lum p u rp o ses. F o r a s chool as s i gnm entt o w r i t e about hi s m ot her , Z heng cl ai m s t o have w ri t t en an essaycon si st i ng l arge l yof cri t i ci sm s of “C hinese governm entcadr es ” and a dm oni t i ons t hat“the ca dr es had bett er w at ch thei rbehavi orand be ni ce t o or di narypeopl e.” T he I J w as w i t hi n hi s ri g h ts t o s us pectt he authent i ci t yof thi s s t r ange a nd t e n d e n t i o u s e s s a y. I n Jis hi as hvi l i v. A t t or n ey G eneral , 402 F. 3d 386, 393 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), w e e x p lain e d th e re q u ire m e n t th a t a c r e d ib ili ty det er m i nat i on bas ed on “i m pl aus i bi l i t y ” mustbe “gr ounded i n t he re c o rd ”

— a s, f

o r e x a m p le, b y re f

e re n c e to c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s— in or dert o avoi d “s pecul at i ve orconj ectur al r eas o n i n g . ” W e thi nk t hat t he I J ’ s i m pl aus i bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on her e had s om e b as i s i n t he r ecor d, i n t hatt her e w as evi dence t o s uppor thi s bel i ef thatZ heng came t o A m er i ca be caus e he mi s s ed hi s par en ts, n o tbeca us e he w a s p e rs e c u te d

. C.
A tal l event s , t he I J di d notr el yon im p l aus i bi l i t yal one. I ns t ead, he det er m i ned that , due t o t he i nh ere nti m pl aus i bi l i t yof Z h e ng ’s st ory , and t he ( rel at i vely m i no r) con t radi ct i on s i n h is t e s t i mon y , i twou l d n o tb e u n r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c ts o me e v i d e n ce t o corr obor at e Zheng’ s acc ount

. I n A bd ulaiv. A shcro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 551- 54 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w e uphel d the B I A ’ s rul e on corr o b o rati o n s etouti n In re S -M -J -, 2 1 I. & N

. D ec . 7 2 2 (B IA 1997)

. U ndert hi s rul e, “( 1) an appl i cant need notpr ovi de evi dence c o rro b o ra tin g th e sp e c if ics o f h is o r h e r te stim o n yu n les s it w o u ld b e ‘re a so n a b le’ to e x p e c t th e a p p lica n t to d o so ; b u t (2 ) if it w o u ld be ‘ r eas onabl e’ t o expec tcorr obor at i on, then an appl i cantw ho n eit h er introd u ce s su ch ev iden ce n o r of fe rs a sa ti sfa ctory expl anat i on as t o w hy he ors he ca nnotdo s o m aybe found t o have fai l ed t o m eethi s orherbur den of pr oof. ” A bdul ai , 239 F. 3d at 5 5 1

. W e f

in d n o f a u lt w ith th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n h e re th a t itw o u ld b e re aso n ab le t o e x p e c t corro b o rati o n o f Z h en g ’s st o ry . A s the IJ not ed, Z heng’ s gr andpar ent s and uncl e ar e st i l l i n C hi na, and l i nes of comm uni cat i on r emai ned open. Z heng di d n o t su b m i tany corr obor at i on fr om t hem. N ordi d he s ubm i tanys chool r ecor dsWe aresy mpathe ticto Zhe ng ’s argument t hat th eIJ wa s mere ly 2 spec u lati n g th at s u c h r e c o rd s e xis t, b ut w e n o te th at th e Re al I D Act larg el y fore closes it. The Ac t provides that “[n]o court shall rever se a deter mination made by

a trier of fa ct with re s p ec t to the availability of c orro bo ratin ge v i d e n c e. . . un l e s s th ec o urtf i n d s . . . th ata

r e a s o n a ble trier of fac t i s compelled to conc lude that such c orroboratingevidenc e is unavailable.”Real ID Act of 2005, § 101(e) , Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 2 31 , 3 05 , to be c odif ie d at 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2(b) (4 ). Th is p ro vis ion is eff ective immediate ly , and applies to Zheng ’s petition. S ee id. § 101(h)( 3), 119 Stat. at 305- 06. We se e no compe lling re ason to believe that su c h d oc uments wo uld be un availa ble , a nd there fo rec ann ot re ve rs e theIJ on th is p oint. 7 i n d i c a t i n g t h a th e w a s s u s p e n d e d f o rw r i t i n g h i s e s s a y. 2 I ns t ead, h e su b m i t t ed l et t er s fr om t w o fr i ends , w hi ch con fi rm ed the broad out l i nes of his st ory . T he I J rejec ted t hese let ters, in p art be ca u se n eit h er m en ti o n ed Z h en g ’s m o ther’s s te ri liz a tio n : th e ym e re ly d e s c ri b e d “ M y M o th e r” a s “ re a c tio n a ry,” w i t houts ay i ng t hati tconce r ned for ced st eril i zat i on. Z heng i s no doubt corr ect t hat t he I J w as unr eas onabl e i n as s um i ng t hatZ heng w oul d have t ol d hi s fr i ends abouthi s m ot her ’ s s t er i l i zat i on. N onethel es s , w e agr ee w i t h t he I J t hatt hes e l ett er s have no pr obat i ve val ue and, i n fac t , har m Z heng’ s cas e. I n par t i cul ar , one o f Z h e n g ’s f

rie n d s, C h a n g H o n g Y e , sta ted th a t Z h e n g c a lled h im f ro m th e U n ited S tate s in M a y2 0 0 2 . In f a c t, Z h e n g a rriv e d in th is c o u n tryin Ju n e 2 0 0 2 , an d w a s n o t re lea se d f ro m c u sto d yu n til A ugus t 2002. H i s ow n t es t i m ony w as t hat he cal l ed Y e “[ a] w eek ort w o aft erI coul d r eac h m ym ot her ’ s hom e, ” i

. e. , i n A ugus t2002. W h en co n fro n ted w ith this discrep an cy , Z h en g stat ed that “it ’s p o ssible th at I m ad e a ph o n e call w h il e i n m y p a te rn a l u n cle’s hom e” i n Chi n a i n M a y2 0 0 2

. Th e I J was e n t i t l e d t o f i n d t h at Z h e n g ’s in iti a l tes tim o n y , h is la te r b a c k tra c k in g , an d h is corr obor at i ve evi dence w er e i n hopel es s co n fl i ct , and thus d a m a g e d h i s c r e d i b i l i t y. In su m , the IJ w a s c o n f

ro n ted w ith a n in h e re n tlyim p lau sib le st oryand an ap pli cant w ho con t radi ct ed hi m sel f i n s everal places

. H e ther efor e l ooked fors uppor t i ng evi dence , and found a s us pi ci ous l ack of

c r edi bl e corr obor at i on. G i ven thes e fa ct s , w e ca n har dl yconcl ude that“anyrea so nabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be c o m p e l l e d ” t o d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e I J

. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B )

. We8 w i l l t her efor e uphol d t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on. III

. Z heng al s o r ai s es a C A T cl ai m , ar gui ng t hathe w i l l be t o r tu r e d i f h e i s r e tu r n e d t o Ch i n a . To t h e e x t e n t t h a tZh e n g c l a i ms t hat he w i l l be t ortured for w ri t i ng “M yM other , ” t he IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on for ecl os es t hatcl ai m . T o t he ext en tt hat Z h e n g c l a i m s t h a th e w i l l b e t o r t u r e d f o rl e a v i n g C h i n a i l l e g a l l y, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to h e a r h is a rg u m e n ts, b e c a u se h e f a iled to ra is e th e m in h is a p p e a l to th e B IA

. See Abdul r ahm an , 330 F. 3d at 5 9 4 -9 5 ; see al

so 8 U

. S. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (d) ( 1)

. Fur t her m or e, Z heng has p o inted to n o ev iden ce , m u ch less co m p ell ing ev iden ce , to su p p o rt hi s cl ai m t hati ti s m or e l i kel y t han not t hat he w oul d be t or tur ed on re tu rn in g to C h in a . See 8 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0 8

. 1 6 (c)(2). Fo r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w w i l l be d e n ie d

.