2010 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 9-7-2010 

# Xi a C he n 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 . 09-4308

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " Xi a C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 645. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/645I M G - 287 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- 4308

___________ XI A C HE N, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s ( A gencyN o. A 095- 687- 938) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l bert o J . R ei fkohl

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

A ugus t25, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, V A N A SK I E and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember7, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M. X i a C hen, a ci t i zen of

C hi na, s eek r evi ew of a f i nal r emoval or derent er ed byt he Bo a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) . 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. I n J anuary2005, C hen s oughtt o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es atL os A ngel es2

I nt ernat i onal A i rpor tw i thouta val i d entrydocument . She w as i nt ervi ew ed and s erved w ith a N o tic e to A p p e a r c h a rg in g in a d m is s ib ility u n d e r I N A § 2 1 2 (a )( 7 )( A )( i) (I ). R emoval pr ocee di ngs eventual l yw er e tr ans ferr ed t o an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) i n N ew J e r s e y . Ch e n c o n c e d e d th e c h a r g e i n th e No t i c e t o Ap p e a ra n d a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) r el i ef. C hen cl ai m ed t o have s uffe r ed per s ecut i on i n C hi na as a C hr i s t i an, and t o fea rfutur e per s ecut i on for havi ng once ha rbor ed a f r i end w ho pr act i ces Fal un G ong. C h e n tes tifie d th a t sh e b e c a m e a C h ristia n a t ag e f o u rte e n a n d w a s a c tiv e ly in v o lv e d in h e r c h u rc h , w h ich w a s n o t g o v e rn m e n t sp o n so re d . C h e n a n d h e r f a m ily p rac ti ce d sec retl y , an d their co n g reg ati o n m et i n C h en ’s ho m e o n ce o r tw ice a w ee k . In O ct ober2004, w hen C hen w as age tw enty - tw o, the pol i ce r ai ded the home w hi l e el even ortw el ve par i s hi oner s w er e pr es ent , and theyarr es t ed C hen and f ourother s . C hen w as ques t i oned atthe s t at i on, m ai nl yr egar di ng the i dent i tyof herpas t or , and s he cl ai m s t hat a n o f f i c e rs l a p p e d h e rf

a c e d u r i n g th e i n t e rr o g a t i o n . C h e n w a s d e t a i n e d f o rth r e e d a ys and r el eas ed w hen herm otherpai d a 3, 000 R M B fi ne. I n D ece m ber2004, i n an unr el at ed i nci dent , C hen al l ow ed a f r i end t o s t ayi n her hom e fora w eek. Shor t l yaft erthe s t ay , the fr i end’ s m othert ol d C hen thatthe fr i end had been a rr es t ed forFal un G ong- r el at ed ac t i vi t i es . C hen pr om pt l yl eftC hi na bec aus e s he fea r ed thats he t oo m i ghtbe arr es t ed. T he I J deni ed r el i ef. Fi r s t , the I J found thatC hen w as notcr edi bl e i nas m uch as3

sh e h ad fa il ed to m en ti o n h er a rrest an d all eg ed reli g iou s p erse cu ti o n d u ri n g the a irp o rt i nterview . W hen asked a tthe airpo rtw hyshe w as at t em pti ng t o en t er the U nit ed S t at es, C hen ment i oned onl ythe arr es tof herfr i end. Second, and al t ernat i vel y , the I J deni ed r e l i e f o n th e me r i t s , f

i n d i n g n o s h o wi n g th a tCh e n wa s p e r s e c u t e d th r o u g h th e two unr el at ed i nci dent s , orpos s es s ed a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, and he de ni ed w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T r el i ef. T he B I A di s m i s s ed C hen’ s appea l . I thel d that , even i f C hen w as deemed cr edi bl e, s he fa i l ed t o s at i s fythe bur den of pr oof foras y l um . T he B I A agr eed, i n part i cul ar , that C hen di d nots how pas tharm thatr i s es t o the l evel of per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f ear of futur e per s ecut i on. I tobs erved that , w hi l e C hen w as s l apped dur i ng herthr ee- day det ent i on, s he di d notr equi r e medi cal tr eatm entaft erbei ng r el eas ed, s he w as never c h a rg e d w ith a c rim e , an d sh e c o n tin u e d to w o rsh ip a t th e f a m ilyc h u rc h . W ith re g a rd to C hen’ s cl ai m thats he has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof herr el i gi on g i v e n th e p o o rtr e a t me n to f Ch r i s t i a n s i n Ch i n a , th e BI A n o t e d th a t , wh i l e s o me Ch r i s t i a n s , p a r t i c u l a r l yth o s e a s s o c i a t e d wi th u n a u th o r i z e d c h u r c h e s , h a v e f a c e d h a r m, C hen fa i l ed t o s how thats he w oul d be unabl e t o pr act i ce Chri s t i ani tyi n C hi na, orthats he w oul d fac e per s ecut i on i f s he di d s o. T he B I A r ej ect ed C hen’ s cl ai m forw i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe hi ghers t andar d thatgoverns el i gi bi l i tyforthatr el i ef, and found no evi dence t o es t abl i s h t hati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatC hen w oul d be t or tur ed i f r etur ned to C h in a . C h e n tim e lyf iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th is C o u rt.C f. Jarbo ug h, 48 3 F . 3d at19 1 (holdi ng that r ecord d i d n ot com pel fi nd i ng of p ast 1 p e r s e c u t i o n wh e r e a l i e n t e s t i f i e d th a t“ S yr i a n i n t e l l i g e n c e o f f i c e r s s e i z e d h i m o n two occa s i ons . T he fi r s tt i m e, the off i cer s pl ace d J arbough i n an i nt err ogat i on r oom forfour hour s . T heythr eat ened hi m w i th w i r es and el ectr i cal cabl es , s cr eamed athi m , and j abbed h i s s h o u l d e rwi th th e i rf i s t s . T h e s e c o n d t i me , th e o f f i c e r s c o n f

i n e d J a rb o u g h f

o rtwo day s . T heycur s ed, thr eat ened, ki cked, s hoved, and pus hed hi m . A s a r es ul tof thi s abus e, J arbough s uffe r ed brui s i ng. H e di d notgo t o a doct or , how ever , as hi s i nj ur i es di d not ‘req u ir e im m ed iat e m ed ical i n terve n ti o n . ’”). 4 W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (1) . “W e revi ew factual fi nd i ng s, i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs of per s ecut i on and fe arof per s ecut i on, underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence sta n d a rd .” S a n d ie v . A tt’yG e n ., 5 6 2 F .3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “U n d e r th is defe r ent i al s t andar d, fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat or w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ” Id . (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e agr ee thatC hen’ s det ent i on di d notamount t o “per s ecut i on, ” w hi ch w e have e x p lain e d “ is a n e x tre m e c o n c e p t th a t d o e s n o t in c lu d e e v e ryso rt o f tre a tm e n t o u r so c iety r egar ds as offe ns i ve. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1243 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . “A bus i ve tr eatm entand har as s m ent , w hi l e al w ay s depl or abl e, m aynotr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. ” J arbough v. A t t ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . C hen’ s thr eedaydet ent i on w as r el at i vel ybr i ef, and al though s he w as s l apped i n the fa ce bya pol i ce offi cer , s he di d notr equi r e medi cal tr eatm ent . Fur ther , as the B I A not ed, C hen w as not c h a rg e d w ith a c rim e , an d sh e c o n tin u e d to w o rsh ip a t th e c h u rc h a f ter h e r re lea se . T h is r ecor d s i m pl ydoes notcompel a fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on. 1 C hen’ s pr i m aryar gum enton thi s appea l i s thatthe I J err ed i n r ej ect i ng herC hen t es t i fi ed thatthe pol i ce “ s l ap[pe d] m yfac e and theys ai d, w e goty ou. I t ’ s not 2 w o rt h w h ile to s a c ri f

ic e y o u r l if

e f o r t h is ille g a l c h u rc h .” A .R . a t 1 2 8 .

5 cr edi bi l i ty , and s he cont ends thatthe mat t ers houl d be r emanded forthe B I A t o cons i der the a d v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing . W h il e the rec o rd sh o w s tha t th e IJ rejec ted C h en ’s c r e d i b i l i ty , th e I J a l s o a d d r e s s e d th e a s y l u m c l a i m o n th e me r i t s a n d d e n i e d r e l i e f. On appea l , the B I A act ed w i thi n i t s author i tyi n as s um i ng C hen’ s cr edi bi l i tyand af fi r m i ng th e IJ’ s a ltern a tiv e m e rits d e ter m in a tio n . A s a re su lt, b e c a u se “ th e B IA d id n o t ex p licitly a d o p t th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili tyf in d in g s, .. . tha t p o rtio n o f [ th e IJ’ s] d e c isio n is n o t p ro p e rly b ef o re [ this C o u rt ]. ” Ja rbo u g h , 4 8 3 F . 3 d at 19 1 . A cc o rdin g ly , w e too w il l assu m e C h en ’s cr edi bi l i ty , and, forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed, m us tr ej ectthe as y l um cl ai m on the mer i t s . See i d . T h i s m a t t e rn e e d n o tb e r e m a n d e d f o rth e B I A t o a d d r e s s th e i s s u e o f c r e d i b i l i ty. C hen al s o ar gues thatthe B I A err ed byi gnor i ng evi dence thats he r ece i ved a “d ea th threa t” w h il e in c u stod y , an d that sh e h ea rd o n e o f h er f ell o w ch u rch m em b ers sc re a m in p a in d u e to a b e a tin g b yth e p o lice . A ss u m in g , arg u e n d o , tha t th e p o lice d id 2 m ake a “dea th t hr eat ” t o C hen, w e fi nd no bas i s t o hol d thatthe B I A ’ s anal y s i s of the re c o rd w a s in su f

f icie n t m e re lyb e c a u se it fa iled to m a k e e x p re ss re f e re n c e to c e rta in asp ec ts of

C h en ’s t esti m o n y , see T o u ssain t v. A tt ’yG en . , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 4 (3d C ir . 2006) , nordo w e di s cern anybas i s t o r emand t hi s m att erforfur thercons i der at i on of the al l eged de ath t hr eat . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( expl ai ni ng th a t “u n f u lf ill e d th re a ts m u st b e o f

a h ig h lyim m in e n t an d m e n a c in g n a tu re in o rd e r toC hen furtherar gues thats he es t abl i s hed a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on 3 beca us e, i nt eral i a, “al though M s . C hen w as nota Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner , s he had a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r in th a t h e r a ss o c iatio n w ith a F a lu n G o n g m e m b e r w o u ld im p lica te h e r.” P e tit io n e r’s B r. at 2 5 . T h e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t C h e n f

a iled to ra ise th is c laim in ei therhernot i ce of

appea l orbr i ef t o the B I A . C hen’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r e me d i e s l e a v e s th i s Co u r twi th o u tj u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e rth i s c l a i m. S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ); H o x h a v . H o lder, 55 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 5 9 -61 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 6 co n sti tute p erse cu ti o n ”). 3 I n s hor t , w e di s cern no err ori n the deni al of as y l um . B eca us e w i thhol di ng of r emoval carr i es a hi gherbur den of pr oof than as y l um , C hen’ s r eques tforw i thhol di ng w as p ro p e rl yd e n ie d , a s w e ll. S e e C h e n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). F in a lly, C h e n d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e d e n ia l o f C A T re lie f

in h e r b ri e f

b e f o re th is C o u rt . A ccor di ngl y , w e dee m thati s s ue w ai ved and do notaddr es s i t . See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e have cons i der ed al l of C hen’ s ar gum ent s and fi nd them w i thoutm er i t . Fort he 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.