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 6-4-2010 

# S hiqi X ue 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 . 09-2901

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 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 " S hiqi X ue v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1195. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1195I M G- 2 2 2 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- 2901

___________ SHI QI XU E, 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 o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 099- 573- 425) I m m i gr at i on J udge: Susa n R oy

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

M ay26, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 4, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Shi qi X ue, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, s eeks r evi ew of a M ay29, 2009 deci s i on byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l fr om the deni al of2

hi s r eques t s foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Fort he r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for re v ie w . I. X ue arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n 2006, w i t houtpr operdocument at i on. I n M ay 2007, he fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on under the C A T , i n w hi ch he a l l eged thathi s w i fe ha d s uffe r ed a f or ced a bor t i on and s t er i l i zat i on i n C hi na and thathi s bus i nes s had bee n s hutdow n bythe C hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng a u th o rities a s a re su lt o f th e ir v io latio n o f

C h in a ’s p o p u latio n c o n tro l law s. A t h is m e rits hear i ng, X ue t es t i fi ed thathe w as m arr i ed i n 1996, and had hi s fi r s tchi l d, a daught er , on Ja n u a ry9 , 1 9 9 7 . (A R 1 7 3 .) H e tes tifie d th a t in M a rc h 1 9 9 7 , at th e re q u e st o f f a m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s , an I U D w as i m pl ant ed i n hi s w i fe. ( A R 174. ) A ts om e poi nti n 2002, how ever , t he I U D fel l outand X ue’ s w i fe be came pr egnant . ( A R 175, 197. ) X ue t es t i fi ed thatw hen hi s w i fe w as aboutfi ve ors i x m ont hs pr egnant , s he tr avel ed t o her m other ’ s hous e forN ew Y ear ’ s E ve. T he fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s i n t hatvi l l age f ound outaboutt he pr egnanc yand for ced he rt o under go an abort i on. ( A R 176- 177. ) X ue t es t i fi ed thathe di d notl earn of the abort i on unt i l the fol l ow i ng daybeca us e he ha d been atw or k ata cons t ruct i on s i t e fort he pr evi ous tw o day s w i t houtacc es s t o a phone. X ue tes tifie d th a t w h e n h e f

o u n d o u t h e w a s v e rya n g rya n d w e n t d ire c tlyto th e f a m ily p lann ing o ff

ice, bu t i t w as m idn igh t and the d o o rm an w o u ld n o t l et him in. ( A R 1 7 7 . )3

H e then w entt o hi s m ot her - i n- l aw ’ s hous e, w her e hi s w i fe c onfi r m ed thats he had be en fo rce d to term inate h er p reg n an cy . (A R 1 7 8 . ) A bouta mont h l at er , X ue’ s w i fe w as fi t t ed w i t h anotherI U D . ( A R 178- 79. ) X ue tes tifie d th a t h e w a n ted m o re c h ild re n , so in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 4 , h e h ire d a p riv a te d o c to r to r emove t he I U D . ( A R 179. ) I n J une 2004, X ue and hi s w i fe l earned thats he w as p re g n a n t ag a in . (Id .) X u e to ld h is w if e to re m a in h o m e f

ro m w o rk a n d lim it co n tac t w ith out s i der s t o avoi d det ect i on. ( I d. ) I n J une 2004, X ue’ s w i fe s ki pped herchec k- up appoi nt m entw i t h t he fa m i l ypl anni ng author i t i es . ( A R 225. ) X ue t es t i fi ed thatdur i ng t he s ame m ont h he w entt o a governm entagenc yt o r eques ta r epl ace m entm arr i age c e rtific a te. (A R 2 2 4 .) X u e ’s s e c o n d c h ild w a s b o rn o n F e b ru a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . A c c o rd in g to X ue, the fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s found outaboutthe bi r t h, and on J ul y14, 2005, they ca m e to h is of

fice loo k ing to steri li ze , arrest, an d fin e h im . (A R 1 9 0 . ) X u e w as n o t th ere atthe t i m e, butfound outw hen a c o- w or kercal l ed hi m and t ol d hi m thatoffi ci al s had co m e loo k ing fo r him an d h ad clos ed d o w n h is bu sine ss. ( A R 1 9 1 . ) X ue t es t i fi ed thataft ert hi s i nci dent , he dec i ded t o es cape . ( A R 192. ) H e w entt o a fr i end’ s hous e forfourm ont hs , t hen t o hi s w i fe’ s s i s t er ’ s hous e fortw o m ont hs , and then on A pr i l 16, 2006, he l eftC hi na. ( I d. ) H e now l i ves i n N ew J er s eyw i t h hi s cous i n and w o rk s f o r a c o n stru c tio n c o m p a n yin N e w Y o rk C ity . X u e m a in tain s th a t th e f a m ily p lan n in g a u th o rities w e re a sk in g h is c o -w o rk e rs q u e stio n s a b o u t h im a n d h is w h e re a b o u ts as r ece nt l yas 20 day s pr i ort o hi s m er i t s hear i ng. ( A R 226- 27. ) H e al s o t es t i fi ed that4

w hi l e he w as s t i l l i n hi di ng athi s fr i end’ s hous e i n C hi na, he t al ked t o hi s w i fe a nd s he to ld h im th a t sh e h a d b e e n f o rc ib lyste rilize d . (A R 1 9 3 .) X u e tes tifie d th a t h e is a f ra id to r etur n t o C hi na bec aus e he be l i eves thathe w i l l be j ai l ed and puni s hed forvi ol at i ng the fa m il yp lann ing p o li cy . (A R 1 9 4 . ) A ppl y i ng R E A L I D A C T s t andar ds , the I J found thatX ue’ s t es t i m onyl acke d cr edi bi l i tybeca us e i tw as uncl ear , i ncons i s t ent , and cont ai ned mul t i pl e di s cr epanc i es and om i s s i ons t hatw entt o t he hea r tof hi s cl ai m s . T he I J fur t herfound that , even a s s um i ng his credi bil i t y , X ue h ad n ot carri ed h i s burden of d em on strat i ng that he suffered pa st per s ecut i on orpos s es s ed a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found that X ue di d notdemonstr at e el i gi bi l i t yforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orC A T pr ot ect i on beca us e thos e cl ai m s w er e bas ed on the s ame t es t i m onythatthe I J had det erm i ned w as notcr edi bl e. X ue appe al ed. T he B I A di s m i s s ed X ue’ s appea l , hol di ng thateven i f X ue had t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y , he had notes t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on bas ed on hi s w i fe’ s for ced abor t i on and s t er i l i zat i on, ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof “o ther res ist an ce ” to th e p o p u lat ion co n tr o l l aw . T h e B IA also co n clud ed that the IJ’s c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n w a s n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . T h is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . II . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W h en the B IA ad o p ts th e f ind ing s o f th e IJ a n d d iscu sses so m e o f th e b ase s fo r th e IJ’s deci s i on, “w e have author i t yt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both t he I J and B I A . ” C hen v.5

A sh c ro f t, 37 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e re v iew a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See i d. B eca us e X ue fi l ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on aft ert he ena ctm entof the R E A L I D A ct , the i ncons i s t enci es , i nacc ur aci es , or f a lse h o o d s u p o n w h ich th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g is b a se d n e e d n o t g o th e h e a rt o f h is c l a i m. S e e Ch u k wu v . At t ’ yGe n . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . Ra t h e r , th e RE AL ID A ct pe rm it s cre d ibil ityd eterm ination s to b e b ase d o n o b serv ati o n s o f X u e’s d em ea n o r, the pl aus i bi l i t yof hi s s t or y , t he cons i s t encyof hi s s t at ement s , or“anyot herr el evant fact or. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)( 1)( B )( i i i ). W e m ustdefe r t o an d u ph old the IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons “unl es s t he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 471 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ). III . X ue pr ot es t s t hatt he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng w as nei t hers peci fi c nor cogent , and w as bas ed on fa ctual det erm i nat i ons uns uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. W e have cl osel yrevi ew ed the r ecord an d co nclude t hat s ub st anti al evidence sup po rt s the ad verse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i n t hi s cas e. B oth t he B I A and I J pr ovi ded numer ous r eas ons for concl udi ng t hatX ue l acke d cr edi bi l i t y . Fi r s t , the I J not ed thatal t hough X ue t es t i fi ed that he had be en w or ki ng ata cons t ruct i on companyw hen hi s w i fe w as t aken t o have the abor t i on, thi s empl oy eri s notl i s t ed anyw her e on hi s I - 589 appl i cat i on. X ue’ s expl anat i on fort hi s om i s s i on w as t hathe di d notthi nk i tw as i m por t ant , even though thi s j ob keptX ue6

fr om fi ndi ng outaboutt he abort i on unt i l the fol l ow i ng day– a keyas pectof hi s t es t i m ony conce rni ng t hi s i nci dent . Second, t he I J found i ti ncons i s t entthatX ue w oul d have s ought to re p lac e h is m a rria g e c e rtific a te in Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , the sa m e m o n th th a t h is w if e p u rp o se ly m i s s ed hergynecol ogi cal exam, i n l i ghtof hi s t es t i m onythathe had t ol d hi s w i fe they neede d t o be ca r eful and l i m i tcont actw i t h out s i der s w hi l e s he w as pr egnant . W hen ques t i oned abouthi s m ot i vat i on, X ue i ni t i al l ys t at ed thathe w as notafr ai d t o r enew t he ce rt ifi ca te be ca u se h is w ife h ad n o t m issed h er c h ec k u p y et, b u t after h e w as sh o w n h is I 589 i ndi cat i ng t hats he mi s s ed herappoi nt m enti n J une 2004, X ue cha nged hi s t es t i m ony a n d sta ted th a t h e w a s n o t co n c e rn e d b e c a u se th e m a rria g e c e rtific a tio n a n d f a m ily planni ng off

i ces w ere l ocated i n d i fferentpart s of t ow n. (A R 22 5. ) Th e IJw as al so tr oubl ed byX ue’ s t es t i m onyt hatoffi ci al s i n C hi na ar e s t i l l l ooki ng forhi m . X ue t es t i fi ed that tw en tyd ay s o r so b ef o re h is he aring , h is w ife told h im that h is fo rm er c o -w o rke rs w er e appr oache d bypl ai n cl ot hes offi cer s i dent i fy i ng themsel ves as fami l ypl anni ng o f f icia ls a n d lo o k in g f

o r X u e to a rre st h im . H o w e v e r, th is in f o rm a tio n c a m e to lig h t o n ly thr ough ques t i oni ng att he end of t he hea r i ng, and w as notpr ovi ded i n hi s I - 589 ori n any o th e r d o c u m e n t. X u e tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t th in k to a m e n d h is a p p lica tio n , b u t as th is tes tim o n yc o n c e rn s th e v e ryre a so n th a t X u e is a f ra id to re tu rn to C h in a , the IJ f o u n d it t o b e a last -m inu te att em p t t o b u ttress h is cl aim . T h e re co rd d o es n o t com p el a c o n tr ary c o n c lu s io n . T h e B IA re v iew e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t th e IJ w a s n o t u n re a so n a b leF o r ex am p le, w e a g ree that X u e’s testi m o n ythat h e w en t t o h is m o ther-in-law ’s 1 ho use on D ecem ber 29th, no tD ecem ber 28th, w as even tuall ycl ari fi ed o n crossexami nat i on. H ow ever , t he I J ’ s as s es s m entthatX ue’ s t es t i m onyaboutthi s i nci dentw as “ n o t f o rt h ri g h t o r s tr a ig h tf

o rw a rd o r c a n d id ” is a ls o s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . (A R 5 9 .)

7 in f ind ing that X u e’s testi m o n yw as g en era ll yco n v o luted an d n o n -resp o n sive . T h e B IA al s o not ed X ue’ s l ack of evi dence oraff

i davi t s corr obor at i ng keypart s of hi s cl ai m , s uch as the cl ai m t hathe ow ned a bus i nes s , orthatfami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s w er e s t i l l l ooki ng f o r h im . In re sp o n se , X u e a ttem p ts to d e m o n stra te th a t h is te stim o n yw a s in ter n a lly c o n s is te n t, a n d th a t h is e x p la n a tio n s f o r f a ilin g to p ro v id e c o rr o b o ra tio n w e re re a s o n a b le . A l though X ue maybe abl e t o r ehabi l i t at e hi s t es t i m onyi n one ortw o r es pect s , w e fi nd 1 th a t th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n is s u p p o rte d b y“ re a so n a b le, s u b sta n tial, and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W i th r es pectt o X ue’ s cl ai m s underC A T , the B I A found thatX ue had notcl ai m ed thathe had be en t or tur ed i n t he pas t , and fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h t hathe more l i kel ythan not w oul d s uffe rt or tur e i n t he futur e. T hi s as s es s m enti s al s o s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he I J found that , fores s ent i al l ythe s ame r eas ons thathe di d notpr es ent cr edi bl e evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on, X ue di d notpr es entcr edi bl e evi dence thatany one in C h in a w o u ld s e e k to to rt u re h im u p o n h is re tu rn . I V. A c c o rd in g ly, th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .