N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT QIANG DONG, AKA Lijie Dong, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-73260 Age n c y No. A089-661-702 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 6, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : PAEZ a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s a

nd M ORR IS, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED DEC 29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble B rian M . M o rris, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.Qia

ng Dong, a

c itiz e n o f C hina , pe titions for re vie wof the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (B IA) fina l orde r of re m ova l de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e grant the pe tition in pa rt a nd de ny it in pa rt. 1. The im m igrat ion judge ’ s (IJ) finding tha t Dong wa s not c re d ible wa s ba se d on substa

ntia l e vide nc e , a s wa s the B IA’ s a ffirm anc e . Tha t e vide nc e inc l ude s: Dong’ s om ission from his a sy lum

a p plic ation of his wife ’ s a lle ge d forc ible a bortion; his subse q

u e nt e va sive ne ss whe n disc ussing this om ission during the s e c ond he aring; theinc onsiste nc ie s in his disc ussion of how fre q

ue ntly the fam ily pla nning a g e nc y

sought him

out; a nd his a dm ission tha

t he lie d unde r oath to a n a sy lum offic e r in his 2008 he aring. The B IA’ s de te rm ination is “ c onc lusive unle ss a ny re a sona

ble a djudic ator would be c om pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry .” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); K in v . Holde r , 595 F. 3d 1050, 1054 (9th C ir. 2010). Noneof Dong’ s e xpla nations for the se inc onsiste nc i e s m e e ts tha t high ba r. B e c a use Dong’ s te stim ony

is not c re dible , we m

u st a sse ss his c la im s ba se d on his doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e a lone
. Se e

, e .g. , Almaghzar v
. Gonzale s , 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th C ir. 2006).

22. To e sta blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , a

pe titione r m

ust show tha

t he “ ha s suffe re d pe rse c ution, or ha s a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution on a c c o unt of, am ong othe r things, politic a l opinion.” Ming Xin He v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 792, 794 (9th C ir. 2014). Dong’ s doc um e nta ry e vide n c e doe s not de m onstra te pa st pe rse c ution. Dong’ s doc um e nta ry e vide nc e indic ate s tha

t he and his wifeha d a se c o nd c h ild, tha

t the y we re fine d for viola ting C hina ’ s one -c hild polic y , a nd tha t Dong lost his job. Eve

n if Dong c ould provetha t his job loss wa s c onne c te d to the viola tion of C hina ’ s one -c hild polic y , he ha s not de m onstra te d tha t the e c onom ic c onse q ue nc e s of the fine and job loss “ c onstitute [d] a thre at to lifeor fre e dom ” suffic i e nt to qua lify

a s pa st pe rse c ution. Ze h aty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th C ir. 2006); se e also Ming Xin He , 749 F.3d a t 796. B e c a

use Dong ha s not e sta blishe d pa st pe rse c ution, the re is no pre sum ption tha t he ha s a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C i r. 2003). 3. In his a sy lum

a pplic ation, Dong re sponde d a ffirm ative ly to the que stion,

“ Do y ou fe ar harm

or m istre atm e nt if y ou re turn to y our hom e c ountry ? ” Dong a lso te s tifie d be fore the IJ tha t if he wa s re turne d to C hina he would possibly

be ste riliz e d. None the le ss, the IJ m a de no finding re g arding Dong’ s fe ar of future pe rse c ution. In his notic e of a ppe a l to theB IA, Dong sta te d, “ The IJ fa ile d to

3c onside r the doc um e nta ry e vide nc e in finding tha

t re sponde nt ha d

not e sta blishe d a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution to sta te a c la im for a sy lum .” Dong re ite ra te d tha t he an d his wife like ly

would be ste riliz e d in his supporting brie f. The B IA, howe v e r, a lso fa ile d

to a ddre ss Dong’ s fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Abse nt a n a ge nc y finding, wec annot rule on whe the r Dong e s ta blishe d a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution or is more like ly tha n not to bepe rse c ute d if he re turns to C hina . The re fore , we re m an d to the B IA to de te rm ine whe the r Dong is e ligible for a sy lum or withholding of re

m ova l ba se d on his fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e Re

galo-Esc obar v . Holde r , 717 F.3d 724, 729 (9th C ir. 2013). 4. Dong ha s a lso fa ile d to e s ta blish e ligibility

for re l ie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). Whe n a pe titione r’ s te stim ony is found not c re d ible , this C ourt c an disa pprove the B IA’ s de c ision de ny ing C AT prote c tion only if it finds tha

t the pe titione r’ s doc um e n ta ry e vide nc e and the c ountry re ports a lone c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the pe titione r is m ore like ly tha n not to be torture d. Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048-49 (9th C ir. 2010). He re , the only doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e Dong ha s provide d re ga rding his potentia l future torture is the Unite d State s De pa rtm e n t of Sta

te ’ s C ountry

R e p ort on C hina , whic h note s tha t in fa m ilie s tha t ha ve two c hildre n like Dong’ s , “ o n e pa re nt wa s ofte n

4pre s sure d to unde rgo ste riliz ation.” This sta te m e nt doe s not c om

p e l re ve rsing the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t D o ng is ine ligiblefor C AT prote c t ion. G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART . Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts.

5