2004 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
2-25-2004 

# C he n v . Atty Ge n U S P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2978

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . 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
" C he n v . Att y Ge n U S " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 982. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/982NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2978

GUI C HUN CHEN,

Petitioner
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

On Petiti on for Review of an Order of t he Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (BIA No. A73-046-823)

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

August 1, 2003 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , RE ND EL L a nd A M BR O, Circuit Judges (Fil ed: February 25, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

SC IRI CA , Chief Judge
. Deportati on proceedi ngs were ini tiated under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)( 1)(A) agai nst Gui Chun Chen, a nati ve citizen of China who ent ered theUnited States il legal ly . The Immi gr atio n Ju dge fou nd Ch en remov abl e an d de ni ed h is app li cat io n fo r a sy lu m, withholdi ng of removal, and voluntary departure. On June 19, 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals i ssued an affirmance without opinion. Chen filed t

his petiti on for review. We held t

he case c. a.v. , pendi ng the outc ome of Dia v. Ash croft , 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 200 3) (en ban c). Unde r Dia , we w ill deny Chen’s pe tition and affirm the BIA ’s order. I On July 24, 1996, the INS issued an order to s how cause, char ging Chen as deportabl e for havi ng entere d the Unite d States without aut horizat ion. Chen sought

reli ef in the form of political asylum, withh olding of re mov al, or alternatively, voluntary dep artu re. C hen bas ed h is ap plica tion for asylum on C hin a’s c oer cive pop ulati on c ont rol. The Immigrati on Judge found Chen’s testi mony “inc onsistent with t he written applic ations and questi on[ed] thecredibi lit y of [Chen’s ] clai m.” Accordingl y, the Immigration Judge deni ed allof Chen’s claims for r elie f. Chen appeal ed to theBIA, and under the s treaml ining provisi ons of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a) (7), it af firmed the Immigration Judge’s dec isi on without opi nion, s tipul ating t hat theImmigration Judge’ s decis ion was the f inal a gen cy de term inati on.1 We have juris dicti on over order s of removal unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
2 To prevailin a faci al chal lenge t o a regulation, a peti tioner “must est ablis h that no s et of circ umstances exi sts under which the [r egulation] would be val id.” Reno v. Flores , 507 U .S. 292, 301 (1993) (interna l quotation om itted). 3 Chen appeals chal lenging t he legal ity

of the st reamli ning regul ations and questi oning whether i t was lawful for the BIA to deci de to affi rm the Immigr ation Judge’s order without

opinion for

his cas e. 1 II Chen challenge s the st

reamli ning regul ations ’ affir mance without opi nion pro ced ure s. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003. 1(a)( 7). We upheld t he vali dity

of the st reamli ning provisi ons in Dia , 353 F.3d at 245 (“[T ]he streamlining provisions an d the BIA ’s issuanc e of an [affi rmance without opinion]
. . . did not vi olateeithe r the I NA or the Constit ution. ”). We furt

her held: “[T]he fact

that t he revie w is done by one member of the BIA and that

the deci sion i s not accompani ed by a ful lyreasoned BIA deci sion may be less desirable from the petitioner’s poi nt of view, but it does not make the process consti tuti onally

‘unfair .’” Id. at 243-44. Accordingly , Chen’s fac ial c halle nge to the streamlining provisi on fails. 2 III Ch en u rge s us to re view wh ethe r it w as la wf ul fo r the BIA to str eam line h is ca se. The BIA’s decisi on to apply the st reamli ning regul ations to a part icular case i s a matte r committed to its discr etion. But where the BIA adopts the Immigr ation J udge’s deci sion3 As the S eventh C ircuit noted, “[I]t mak es no prac tical difference w hether the B IA

properl y or

improperl y st

reamli ned revie w of [petitioner’ s] case . Sincewe review directly the decision of the [ immigration judge] w hen a ca se com es to us from the BIA pursuant to § 1003.1( a)(7) , our abi lit y t o conduct a ful l and fai r apprai sal of t he petit ioner’ s case i s not compromis ed, and the peti tioner ’s due proc ess ri ghts ar e not vio lated .” Ge orgis v . Ashc roft , 328 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003 ) (footnote om itted). 4 as it s own, we review the merits by r eviewing the Immigration Judge’ s decis ion as t he fina l dec ision of th e ag enc y. See G ao v. A shcro ft , 299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 200 2). 3 The Imm igration Judge’s determination that Chen was not eligible for asy lum must be uph eld if “supp orted by reasonab le, substantial, and prob ative evidenc e on the rec ord considered as a whole. ” INS v. Eli as-Zacari as , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (i nternal quotation omitted). Under this deferential st andard, the findings must be upheld unless the ev idenc e not o nly supp orts a c ontrar y conclu sion, “b ut compels it. ” Id. at n.1 (emphasis in ori ginal) . Pure ques tions of law concerni ng the INA are revi ewed de novo
. Ladh a v. INS , 215 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2000). Alleged due process violations are al so reviewed de novo
. Castil lo -Pe re z v . I NS , 212 F.3 d 51 8, 52 3 (9 th C ir. 20 00)
. Here, therecord s hows that t he Immigration Judge’ s findi ngs are suppor ted by substantial eviden ce, and his lega l conclusions a re correct. Particularly, the record supports the Immigr ation J udge’s concl usions t hat Chen fail ed to est ablis h that hi s wife had b een f orcibly sterilize d. Th e reco rd also supp orts the findin g ofcertain inconsi stenci es in Chen’s applic ation and testimony. Moreover, the re is no evidence t hat5

the Im migra tion Ju dge v iolated Ch en’s d ue pr oces s rights b y failing to a dequ ately consider all relevan t docum entary evidence. W e find no error. IV For the fo regoing rea sons, we will deny Ch en’s petition and affirm the B IA’s order.