2008 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 11-18-2008 

# Lin 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 . 08-2927

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 218. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/218NOT 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. 08- 2927

___________ L I HUI L I N, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 ( A gencyN o. A 99- 672- 998) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

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

N ovember14, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember18, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM L i H ui L i n, a C hi nes e nat i ve and c i t i zen, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the deni al bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) of Li n’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe2

C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . B efor e the I J , L i n t es t i fi ed thathe had s uffe r ed pastpersecut i on and feared fu ture persecut i on bythe C hinese gov ernm ent as a pr act i t i onerof C hr i s t i ani t y . Speci fi cal l y , L i n al l eged thati n J ul y2002, atthe ur gi ng of h is f ri e n d a n d to a lle v ia te h is d e p re s s io n , h e jo in e d a n “ u n d e rg ro u n d ” C h ri s tia n c h u rc h . A ccor di ng t o L i n, t he author i t i es di s cover ed hi s chur ch att endanc e, arr es t ed, i nt err ogat ed, and beat hi m and on e y ear l at er, aft er he escaped a secon d ch urch rai d, cam e t o h i s hou se and thr eat ened hi s par ent s . L i n t es t i fi ed that , fea r i ng futur e per s ecut i on, he w entt o l i ve w i th h i s aunt for s i x m on t hs and t hen fl ed to the U nit ed S t at es. T h e IJ, in a n o rd e r d e n y in g L in ’s v a rio u s p e tit io n s f o r re lief , d e ter m in e d th a t L in w a s n o t cr e d ib le w ith re g a rd to h is e n c o u n ter s w ith th e p o lice a n d th e c o n sis ten c yo f h is chur ch att endanc e i n C hi na. T he I J al s o found that , even i f Li n’ s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e, itd id n o t est ab li sh that h e su ff ere d p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rs e c u tio n . T h e IJ a ls o re je c te d L in ’s C A T c la im . T h e B IA a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a). W e u p h o ld the B IA ’s det erm i nat i ons i f theyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on the re co rd c o n side red as a w h o le. Y u su p o v v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir . 2008) . W her e the B I A s ubs t ant i al l yr el i es on t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, w e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew b o th o p inion s. X ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 9 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T o b e g ra n ted a sy lu m , L in m u st s h o w th a t h e is “ u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to3

[C hi na] . . . beca us 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 t y , 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 ) ; s ee a l s o 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T o be el i gi bl e for w i thhol di ng of r emoval , L i n m us tdemonstr at e that“ther e i s a gr eat er - t han- fi fty - per cent chanc e of pe r s ecut i on” i n C hi na bas ed on one of thes e pr ot ect ed gr ounds . Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ; s ee a l s o 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( C ) . Forr el i ef underthe C A T , L i n m us tdemonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be to rt u re d if

re m o v e d to C h in a . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )( 2 ). T he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t hatL i n’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evidence. S ee S uk w anp utr a v. G on zal es, 43 4 F . 3d 62 7, 63 6 (3d C i r. 20 06 ) ( an ad verse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s appr opr i at el ybas ed on i ncons i s t ents t at ement s and contr adi ct or yevi dence ) . T he I J di s bel i eved Li n’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng the numberof t i m es he att ended the under gr ound chur ch. T he I J found thatL i n’ s t es t i m onythathe a tten d e d c h u rc h o n lyf

iv e o r six tim e s d u rin g a tw o -y e a r p e rio d (b e f o re th e 2 0 0 4 in c id e n t) confl i ct ed w i t h l ett er s L i n s ubm i t t ed fr om hi s fr i end w ho por t r ay ed hi m as a more act i ve c h u rc h m e m b e r. L in f

u rth e r te stif

ied th a t, af

ter th e A p ril 2 0 0 4 in c id e n t, he d id n o t g o to ch u rch u n ti l D ec em b er 2 0 0 5 w h en h is ch u rch w as o n ce ag ain ra ided b ythe v il lage ca d re ( w hi ch l ed t o L i n fl eei ng t o hi s aunt ’ s hous e) . T he I J found thatthi s t es t i m onyconfl i ct ed w i th L i n’ s s t at ement , hi s father ’ s s t at ement , and hi s fr i end’ s s t at ementw hi ch al l i ndi cat ed thatL i n cont i nued t o att end chur ch af t erthe 2004 r ai d. L i n does notexpl ai n t he4

i ncons i s t encybuts t at es , w i t houts uppor t , thathe bel i eves thathi s t es t i m onyw as c o n sis ten t w ith th e lette rs f ro m h is f rie n d a n d h is f

a th e r. T h e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, how ever , i s s uppor t ed bys peci fi c and c ogentr eas ons and “f l ow [s ] i n a rea so n ed w ayfro m the e v iden ce o f re co rd.” D ia v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 5 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). B eca us e Li n cannots at i s fyt he s t andar d foras y l um , he ca nnots at i s fythe hi gher b u rde n o f p roo f f

o r 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 . 1991) . N ordoes t he r ecor d s how t hatL i n w oul d l i kel ybe t or tur ed byorw i t h t he acqui es cenc e of a C hi nes e off i ci al . T her efor e, he i s notel i gi bl e forpr ot ect i on undert he C A T . P ie rr e v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 2 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 9 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ).