2009 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 4-17-2009 

# 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 . 07-3591

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_2009

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 2009 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 " C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1523. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1523NOT 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. 07- 3591

___________ Z AI RO NG C HE 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 77 347 289) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se

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

A pr i l 15, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A pr i l 17, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM W i th the ai d of s m uggl er s know n as s nakehe ads , Z ai R ong C hen, a nat i ve and ci t i zen of

C hi na, tr avel ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1994. H e w as pl ace d i n excl us i on p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r A lien N u m b e r, A 7 1 8 0 0 1 7 9 . T h e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls2

( “B I A ”) aff

i r m ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of C hen’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um a n d w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, i n w h ich h e a lleg e d p e rse c u tio n u n d e r C h in a ’s o n e -c h ild pol i cy . C hen w as deport ed t o C hi na i n 1995. In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 , C h e n a ttem p ted to re -e n ter th e U n ited S tate s. H e w a s p lac e d in r emoval pr ocee di ngs and as s i gned a ne w A l i en N um ber , A 77 347 289. C hen appl i ed for as y l um , r es tr i ct i on on r emoval , and w i thhol di ng underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. T he I J gr ant ed r el i ef i n N ovember2001, fi ndi ng thatC hen had s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on beca us e hi s w i fe ha d been s t er i l i zed. B utaft erthe governm entl ocat ed the r ecor d fr om C hen’ s 1994 excl us i on pr ocee di ngs , i tm oved t o r eopen, vaca t e the or der g ra n tin g re lief

, an d ter m in a te th e re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. T h e IJ g ra n ted th e m o tio n in J anuary2002; the B I A aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on. L at er , how ever , the part i es fi l ed a j oi nt m ot i on t o r eopen. T he B I A gr ant ed the mot i on and r emanded the ca s e forcons i der at i on o f C h en ’s sec o n d ap p li ca ti o n fo r reli ef an d an yinco n sist en cies b etw ee n itan d C h en ’s 1 9 9 4 a p p lic a tio n . Fol l ow i ng an A pr i l 2006 hear i ng, the I J deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng thatC hen w as not cr edi bl e bec aus e of c ontr adi ct i ons i n hi s s t ory , hes i t ancyi n t es t i fy i ng, and the dec ept i on evi denti n hi s eff

or tt o r eappl yforr el i ef unde ra new A l i en N um ber . T he B I A aff i r m ed, s t at i ng thatthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons w er e notcl ear l yerr oneous , that C hen fai l ed to dem on strat e el i gibi l i tyfor r el i ef, and that C hen did not m eri trel i ef as a m att erof di s cr et i on. C hen fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on.T he pr ovi s i ons of the R eal I D A ctof 2005 thataddr es s the C our t ’ s r evi ew of an 1 ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing d o n o t app lyin this ca se b ec au se C h en ap p li ed fo r reli ef b ef o re the A ct’s ef

fe cti v e d ate. Se e C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 3 T h e B IA ’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s a n d f in d in g s o f

f a c t w ill b e u p h e ld if theyare su p p o rt ed b y“re aso n ab le, su b stan ti al an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” Tar r aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . A dver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons bas ed on s pecul at i on or co n jecture are n o t up h eld. S ee G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In gener al , “mi nori ncons i s t enci es and mi noradmi s s i ons . . . ar e notan ade quat e bas i s foran a d v e rs e c re d ib ility f

in d in g .” Id . A n yd is c re p a n c ie s m u s t in v o lv e th e h e a rt o f th e c la im . I d. B eca us e the B I A agr eed w i th t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs and al s o pr ovi ded i t s ow n r at i onal e, w e r evi ew both t he B I A ’ s or derand the I J ’ s deci s i on. See J arbough v. 1 A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 9 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e do notendor s e mostof the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons . Forexampl e, the B IA su p p o rt ed it s ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination in p art byrely ing o n the IJ’s des cr i pt i on of C hen’ s “del ayand hes i t ancy ” i n t es t i fy i ng. W hen as ked i f he ha d anyother pr obl ems w i th t he fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s , C hen paus ed bef or e s t at i ng thathi s w i fe ha d been a rr es t ed and de t ai ned fortw o m onths . L at er , C hen cl ai m ed thathi s w i fe ha d been st eri l i zed. Th e IJ qu est i on ed “w hyi tt oo k the r espon den tso l on g to r em em ber these incid en ts. ” It i s ce rt ainlyap p rop ri ate f o r an IJ t o co n side r an asy lum ap p li ca n t’ s demeanor . See D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 252 n. 23 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc )T h is la tter a rg u m e n t is c e rta in lyp lau sib le. T h e B IA h a d o rd e re d th e IJ o n re m a n d to 2 addr es s i ncons i s t enci es betw een Chen’ s 1994 and 2001 appl i cat i ons , notforthe t aki ng of addi t i onal t es t i m ony . A tthe begi nni ng of the hea r i ng, C hen’ s att orneys t at ed thatC hen di d notw i s h t o t es t i fyorr el i t i gat e hi s 2001 pr ocee di ngs ; r atherhe s oughtonl yt o pr ovi de an expl anat i on forfal s e al l egat i ons i n hi s 1994 as y l um appl i cat i on. 4 ( r ecogni zi ng thatI J ’ s obs ervat i ons of demeanorar e ent i t l ed t o a hi gh degr ee of d e f e re n c e ). B u t C h e n e x p lain e d th a t h e w a s n e rv o u s a n d th o u g h t h e d id n o t n e e d to r epea tt es t i m onythathe had gi ven dur i ng hi s s ucce s s ful as y l um hear i ng i n 2001. 2 T e lli n g ly , o n c e C h e n o v e rc a m e h is h e sita n c y , the d e tails h e p ro v id e d c o n c e rn in g h is w i fe’s st eri l i zat i on and detent i on m at ched al m ostexactl ythe d escr i pti on of those i nci dent s thathe had pr ovi ded i n 2001. I n both i ns t ance s , C hen al l eged thathi s w i fe w as s t e r i l i z e d o n Ap r i l 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 , a f t e rf a mi l yp l a n n i n g o f

f i c i a l s th r e a t e n e d t o p r e v e n th i s t wo c h ild re n f

ro m b e in g e n ter e d o n th e h o u se h o ld re g istry . M o re o v e r, C h e n c o n sis ten tly cl ai m ed hi s fami l yadopt ed a boyi n 2000 butcoul d notpaythe 20, 000 R M B fi ne i m pos ed bythe fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s . A s a r es ul t , C hen’ s w i fe w as arr es t ed, det ai ned atthe fami l ypl anni ng offi ce f ortw o m onths , and r el eas ed onl yaft erC hen’ s el der l ym other c o n v in c e d o f

f ic ia ls th a t s h e c o u ld n o t c o n tin u e b yh e rs e lf to ta k e c a re o f

C h e n ’s c h ild re n . U n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s, C h e n ’s a b ili tyto a c c u ra telyre c o llec t th e se d e tails d u rin g h is 2 0 0 6 tes tim o n yo v e rc o m e s a n yn e g a tiv e c re d ib ili tyin f e re n c e d e riv e d f

ro m th e m a n n e r in w hi ch he t es t i fi ed. Im p o rta n tly , h o w e v e r, to th e e x ten t C h e n re lied o n h is w if e ’s e x p e rie n c e s to su p p o rt h is a sy lu m c laim , h e is n o t elig ib le f o r re lief , ev e n if c re d ib le. W e re c e n tlyh e ldI n addi t i on t o t he al l eged pe r s ecut i on s uffe r ed byhi s w i fe, C hen hi m s el f w as or der ed 3 to p ay5 0 0 0 R M B fo ll o w ing the b irth o f h is seco n d ch il d . T h ere is no ind ict ion , h o w ev er, thatthi s economi c r es tr i ct i on w as s o s ever e as t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. See Li v. A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance i s deni ed. 4 5 thatthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”) does notext end aut om at i c r efuge e sta tu s to sp o u se s o r u n m a rrie d p a rtn e rs o f in d iv id u a ls w h o h a v e b e e n f o rc ib lysu b

jec ted to coer ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng m eas ur es . See Li n- Z heng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 147 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ T h u s, th e re is n o ro o m f o r u s to c o n c lu d e th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to ext end r efuge e s t atus t o any one otherthan the i ndi vi dualw ho h a s e ith e r b e e n f o rc e d to s ubm i tt o an i nvol unt aryabort i on ors t er i l i zat i on, has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e or r efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e, orhas a w el l - founded f earof thatoccurr i ng i n the futur e. ”). T herefore, as a m at t er of l aw , the ex peri ences o f C hen ’s w i fe can no test abli sh hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um . A nd, cons equent l y , the B I A ’ s di s cr et i onarydeni al of as y l um 3 w as notm ani fes t l ycontr aryt o l aw oran abus e of di s cr et i on. See I N A § 242( b) ( 4) ( D ) [8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( D )] . F o rth e 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. 4