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- 4548

___________ XINXI L U, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 089 253 898 I m m i gr at i on J udge: Susa n G . R oy

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

A ugus t18, 2010 B e f o re : 

### REND EL L , FI SH E R A N D G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t20, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM X in x i L u p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

a n o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” or“B oar d”) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) r e mo v a l o r d e r . 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 . X i nxi L u, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, came t o the U ni t ed St at es i n 2001 on a B - 1 vi s a. I n 2008, he w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o s ect i on 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “IN A ”) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( b) ( B ) ] forover s t ay i ng hi s vi s a. L u admi tt ed r emovabi l i tyand r eques t ed asy l um , w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al and rel i ef un der the U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainst T ortur e ( “C A T ”) . L u i ni t i al l ycl ai m ed as y l um on tw o gr ounds : ( 1) i n M ar ch 2001, he w as beat en bya l ocalpol i ce of fi ceri n r et al i at i on forr eport i ng the ow nerof the coppe r pl ant( w her e Lu w orked) forembezzl i ng the pl ant ’ s funds and enga gi ng i n othercorrupt act i vi t i es ( the “w hi s t l e- bl ow i ng cl ai m ”) ; and ( 2) he fe ar ed per s ecut i on forhi s pol i t i cal bel i efs i f he r eturned bec aus e of hi s m ember s hi p i n the C hi na D emocr acyParty( “C D P”) ( th e “ CD P c l a i m” ) . A. R. 4 2 2 - 2 5 . Ata h e a r i n g b e f o r e th e I J , L u o n l yd i s c u s s e dth e CD P cl ai m , and he onl ypur s ues thatcl ai m her e. L u tes tifie dth a t h e jo in e dth e C D P in th e U n ited S tate s in Ju ly2 0 0 7 , an dw ro te thr ee ant i - C hi nes e governm entart i cl es agai ns tthe comm uni s tr egi m e thatw er e publ i s hed on the C D P’ s w ebs i t e. H e al s o part i ci pat ed i n num er ous ant i - C hi nes e governm ent demonstr at i ons i n N ew Y ork C i ty . H e s t at ed thatknow n C D P m ember s i n C hi na had been arr es t ed and i m pr i s oned forthei ract i vi t i es . H e as s ert ed thati n Sept ember2007, loca l C h ines e p o li ce p aid a v isi t t o h is w ife (Jing S h an g ) an dinterrog ated h er a b o u t L u ’s p o lit ica l ac tiv iti e s in th e U n ited S tate s. T h e yw a rn e dS h a n g th a t if L u re tu rn e dh e w o u ldTh ou gh w e are un aw are ofp receden t i al Th i rd C i rc ui top i ni on t hat s o h ol d s, 1 w e a s s um e t hatan al i en c an c l ai m as yl um bas ed on ac t i vi t i es he or s he engag ed i n s i nc e a r r i vi ng i n t he U ni t e d St a t e s . Se e Li J un Ya n v. A t t ’ y Gen . , 3 4 6 Fe d. A p p x. 855, 858 ( 3d C i r. 2009) ( no tp receden t i al ) ; Tu n v . U ni t ed St at es I N S, 445 F .3 d 5 5 4 , 5 7 0 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); G h a d e s s i v . IN S , 7 9 7 F .2 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 7 -0 9 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). The appl i c antm usts how t hat“a ut hori t i es i n hi s c ount r y ofnat i onal i t y ar e ei t her a w a r e ofhi s a c t i vi t i e s or l i ke l y t o b e c om e a w a r e ofhi s a c t i vi t i e s . ” Yan , 3 4 6 Fe d. A p p x . a t 8 5 8 (c itin g L e n g v . M u k a s e y , 5 2 8 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 3 8 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 )) . 3 b e a rre ste d , p ro se c u ted a s a c rim in a l, an dim p riso n e d . T h e p o lice v isited a g a in a m o n th l at er ; Shang r efus ed t o s ayanythi ng agai ns therhus band. Short l yther eaf t er , s he l os ther jo b . T h e p o lic e c o n tin u e dto h a ra s s a n dth re a te n h e r a t h o m e . T he I Jdeni ed al l form s of r el i ef. T he I Jfound thatbecaus e Lu had show n change d c i r c u m s t a n c e s ( h i s m e m b e r s h i p i n th e C D P i n 2 0 0 7 ) , h i s a s yl u m ap p l i c a t i o n w a s t i m e l y. 1 A . R . 30- 31. T he I Jm ade an “over al l ” adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on bas ed on a

“ m a jo r in c o n sis ten c y ” b e tw e e n h is v e ryd e taile da c c o u n t o f th e w h istle- b lo w in g c laim in h is I -58 9 stat em en t and h is disav o w al of the c lai m at th e h ea ri n g . A . R . 3 8 -41 . T h e IJ not ed, how ever , that“thi s i s nott o s ugges tthat[the I J ] does notbel i eve c ert ai n port i ons o f th e re sp o n d e n t’s te stim o n yto d a y. . . w h e n h e sa y s h e jo in e dth e C h in a D e m o c ra tic Party . ” A . R . 38- 39. T he I Jfound cr edi bl e Lu’s t es t i m onythathe w as an ac t i ve mem ber of the C D P begi nni ng i n 2007. T he I Jques t i oned the cr edi bi l i tyof Shang’ s aff i davi tand L u’ s t es t i m onyaboutthe fr equenc yof pol i ce vi s i t s t o hi s w i fe and hi s t es t i m onythat Shang w as fi r ed bec aus e of hi s pol i t i calact i vi t i es , s ee A . R . 42- 44, and ul t i m at el yfound thatL u fai l ed t o s how thathe had an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e fe arof futur e per s ecut i on4

bas ed on hi s pol i t i calbel i efs . T he I Jnot ed that , i n l i ghtof the i nconclus i ve natur e of the S tate D e p a rtm e n t R e p o rts re g a rd in g th e tre a tm e n t o f re tu rn in g C D P m e m b e rs, L u h a dto provide evidence sho w i ng that he w ou l d b e t arget ed b ythe C hinese gov ernm ent for arres t an dim p ri so n m en t. A . R . 4 7 . A fter rejec ti n g L u ’s co rrob o rati n g ev iden ce , the IJ d eterm ined that h e f

ail ed to m ee t his bu rde n . S p ec ifi ca ll y , the IJ d isco u n ted S h an g ’s aff i davi tas out dat ed, A . R . 47, and found thatther e w as no evi dence thatShang l os ther j ob becaus e of Lu’ s m ember s hi p i n the C D P. A . R . 48. T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al . T he B oar d hel d thatther e w as no cl earerr ori n the I J ’ s “part i al adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng” as t o L u’ s w hi s t l e- bl ow i ng cl ai m . A . R . 3. A s for the mer i t s of the C D P cl ai m , r el y i ng on the St at e D epartm ent ’ s 2007 Pr ofi l e of A s y l um c laim s f o r C h in a , the B IA h e ldth a t L u f a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g a w e llf o u n d e df e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n b a s e do n h is a c tiv e p a rt ic ip a tio n in th e C D P . A .R . 4 . L u f ile da tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . II. A n ap pli cant m aydem on strat e el i gibi l i tyfor asy l um byshow i ng ei ther past per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, n a t i o n a l i ty , me mb e r s h i p i n a p a rt 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 . S e e I NA § 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A )]. W e u se a su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd to rev iew fa ctua l fi n d ing s, T arraw all yv . A sh cro ft, 3 3 8 F . 3 d1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs conce rni ng an appl i cant ’ s pas tper s ecut i on or“w el l - founded f earofW e r evi ew the fi nal or derof the B I A , butt o the ext entthatthe B I A adopt s part s of 2 th e IJ’ s o p in io n , w e re v iew th e IJ’ s o p in io n to d e term in e w h e th e r th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to d e f e r t o th e IJ w a s ap p ro p ri a te . Z h a n g v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B ecause L u d oes no tpu rs ue h i s “w his t l e-bl ow i ng cl ai m ” here, w e need no tadd res s 3 th e a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i tyf i n d i n g a s t o th a tc l a i m.

5 futur e per s ecut i on, ” G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . U nderthe su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd , fin d in g s a re u p h e ld“ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tr aryco n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3d C ir . 2001) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . W e r evi ew l egalconclus i ons of the I JorB I A de novo. See 2 B ri sen o -F lores v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 9 2 F . 3 d2 2 6 , 2 2 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T he B I A not ed thatthe I Jfound Lu cr edi bl e w i th r egar d t o hi s C D P cl ai m , butthat the I Jfound he ha d notm ethi s bur den of pr oof t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se o f

h is p o lit ica l o p in io n . B o th th e IJ a n dth e B IA n o ted th a t th e S tate 3 D epartm ent ’ s as y l um pr ofi l e i ndi cat es thati thas “no i ndepende nti nform at i on abouthow peopl e i nvol ved i n [U . S. - bas ed gr oups advoca t i ng democr acyi n C hi na] ar e tr eat ed i f they r eturn t o C hi na. ” See “ C hi na: Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and C ountryC ondi t i ons , ” M ay 2007, A . R . 178. I n fi ndi ng thatL u had notm ethi s bur den, the B I A appear s t o have i m pl i ci t l yagr eed w i th the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatL u pr es ent ed no compet entcorr obor at i ng evi dence t o s upporthi s cl ai m thathe, per s onal l y , w oul d be t ar get ed forarr es tand i m pr i s onm entupon hi s r eturn. T he I Jr ej ect ed Shang’ s aff i davi tas corr obor at i ng e v id e n c e b e c a u s e it w a s n o t u p d a te da s to th e n u m b e r o f p o lic e v is its to th e f

a m ily h o m e . T he I Jtr eat ed as pi vot al a di s cr epanc ybetw een Lu’ s t es t i m ony( s event een vi s i t s as ofA n a ppl i c a ntf or r e l i e funde r t he C onv e nt i on Aga i ns tTo r t ur e be a r s t he 4 bur de n ofe s t a bl i s hi ng t ha ti ti s m or e l i ke l y t ha n no tt ha the or s he w ou l d be to r tu r e d if re m o v e d to th e p r o p o s e d c o u n tr y o f r e m o v a l. ” G h e b r e h iw o t v . A tt’y Gen. , 4 6 7 F. 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 2 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( i nt e r na l q uo t a t i on m a r ks om i t t e d) . The a l i e n m us te s t a bl i s h “ by obj e c t i ve e vi de nc e ” t ha the i s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f . ” I d. I fan a lie n m e e ts h is o r h e r b u r d e n o f p r o o f, w ith h o ld in g o r d e fe r r in g o f r e m o v a l is m a nda t or y. I d. 6 J anuary2009, A . R . 131) ; and Shang’ s M ar ch 2008 af fi davi t( A . R . 360- 61) , w hi ch m e n tio n e dth re e p o lice v isits to h e r h o m e b e g in n in g in S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 7 . R e a so n ab le j ur i s t s w oul d notbe compel l ed t o conclude thatthe I Jerr ed i n r ej ect i ng the af fi davi tas out dat ed and i ncons i s t entw i th L u’ s t es t i m ony . Further , al though one mi ghtdr aw an in f e re n c e th a t L u ’s w if

e w a s f ire db e c a u se o f

h is C D P m e m b e rsh ip , L u c o n c e d e dth a t h is w i fe ha d notbeen t ol d w hys he w as fi r ed; a fa ct - fi nderw oul d notbe compel l ed t o fi nd thats he w as fi r ed due t o hi s pol i t i calvi ew s . A . R . 148. T hus , s ubs t ant i al evi dence su p p o rts th e B IA ’s f

in d in g th a t L u d idn o t m e e t h is b u rd e n o f sh o w in g th a t h e h a s a w e llfou nd ed fe ar of persecut i on on the b asi s of his po l i t i cal beli efs. L u a lso sta tes th a t th e re is “ a c lea r p ro b ab ili tyh e w illsu f f e r to rtu re if

re tu rn e dto C h in a ,” P e t’r’s B r. at 2 1 ; b u t h e d o e s n o t p o in t to a n ye v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t sh o w s it i s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be t ortur ed. W e thus r ej ecthi s chal l enge t o the deni al 4 o f r e l i e f u n d e rth e CA T. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.