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- 3357

___________ AI YUN 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 e s p o n d e n t

___________________________________ 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 098- 355- 711) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam K . M ill s

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2010 B e f o re : M C K E E , C hi ef

Judge , H A R D IM A N a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 4, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerA i Y un C hen, a ci t i zen of C hi na, s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof rem ov al and the d enial of h er m oti on t o rem and . C hen cl ai m s that s he suf fered pastI n Li n- Zheng v. A t t ’ y G en. , 55 7 F. 3d 14 7 ( 3d Ci r . 20 09 ) ( e n b a nc ) , w e qu ot e d a U . S. 1 St at e D epart m entR eporti ndi cat i ng that“the mi ni m um age f orm arr i age i n C hi na i s 22 for m ales a n d 2 0 fo r fe m ales . . . P erso n s w h o m arryb ef o re the sti p u lat ed ag e g en era ll yare notal l ow ed t o r egi s t erthe mar r i age orobt ai n a not ar i zed c ert i fi cat e of mar r i age. ” I d. at 149 n. 2. 2 p e rse c u tio n b yg o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls th ro u g h th e ir e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

C h in a ’s c o e rc iv e f

a m ily planni ng po l i cy . S he fe ars futur e persecut i on i f rem ov ed to C hina. B ecause the adv ers e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i n t hi s cas e i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , and bec aus e the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n w h en itd en ied C h en ’s mo t i o n t o r e ma n d , we wi l l d e n yCh e n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. I n A pr i l 2005, C hen ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed aft eri ns pect i on byan i m m i gr at i on offi cer . C hen w as s erved w i th a not i ce t o appea r , and s he conc eded r emovabi l i ty . T o bl ock herr emoval , s he appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. A ta hea r i ng befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) i n Sept ember2007, C hen t es t i fi ed i n s uppor tof herappl i cat i ons forr el i ef. C h e n tes tifie d th a t sh e w a s b o rn in 1 9 8 5 , an d th a t sh e m a rrie d h e r h u sb a n d in 2004. B eca us e s he w as notof l egal age t o m arry , C hen w as “notperm i tt ed t o get[a] ma rr i a g e c e r t i f

i c a t e f r o m th e g o v e r n me n t . ” I n J u n e 2 0 0 4 , s h e b e c a me p r e g n a n t . On 1 D ece m ber8, 2004, bi r th contr ol cadr es came t o C hen’ s hous e and “ as ked [he r ] t o s how“ RM B” i s th e s ymb o l f o rth e Ch i n e s e c u rr e n c y , r e n mi n b i . Atth e t i me 1 0 , 0 0 0 RM B 2 e q u a le d a p p ro x im a te ly $ 1 ,0 0 0 . 3 th e m th e m a rria g e c e rtific a te a n d th e b irth p e rm it. ” C h e n tes tifie d th a t w h e n sh e c o u ld n o t p ro d u c e th o se d o c u m e n ts, sh e w a s a rre ste d a n d “ se n t . . . to a h o sp ital.” T h e b irth co n tr o l cad res a lso c au sed d am ag e to C h en ’s fu rnitu re. ( A R 1 6 3 ) (“theyb rok e the d o o rs of the r efr i ger at or ”) . A tthe hos pi t al C hen w as for ced t o under go an abort i on. She s t ay ed i n the hos pi t al unt i l the fol l ow i ng day . O n thatdat e, C hen’ s fami l y , i ncl udi ng her hus band, came t o t he hos pi t al and bec ame i nvol ved i n a phy s i cal al t er cat i on w i th “the w o rk e rs in th e h o s p ita l.” C hen w as eventual l yfi ned 10, 000 R M B forherunauthor i zed pr egnanc y , though 2 s he r efus ed t o paythe fi ne. A ppar ent l ydue t o herr efus al t o pay , bi r th contr ol cadr es c a m e to C h e n ’s h o u s e a n d a g a in d a m a g e d h e r f u rn itu re . (A R 1 6 4 ) ( “ a f te r a w h ile . . . ev ery thing alm o st [sic] i n the h o u se [ w as] b rok en , so that theyh ad n o thing to b rea k ”). C h e n tes tifie d th a t, ac c o rd in g to c o n v e rsa tio n s s h e re c e n tlyh a d w ith f a m ilym e m b e rs s til l l i vi ng i n C hi na, the governm enthas thr eat ened Chen w i th s t er i l i zat i on forfai l ur e t o pay the fi ne. A tthe cl os e of the hea r i ng the I J deni ed al l r eques t ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng thatC hen

“ w a s n o t cr e d ib le, a n d sh e p ro d u c e d n o re liab le c o rro b o ra tio n a s w o u ld b e n e c e ss a ryin li g h t of h er inc red u li ty . ” T h e IJ c ri ti cize d C h en fo r th e “ sca n tyd etail in h er w ri tt en I5 8 9 ,” a n d a lso f

o r th e f a c t th a t C h e n ’s te stim o n yp ro v id e d n o f u rth e r e x p lan a tio n a s to4

“w hythe governm entw oul d w antt o s t er i l i ze he rupon r eturn, part i cul ar l yw hen s he and herhus band ar e now of l egal age t o m arryand r eques ta bi r th perm i tforhavi ng chi l dr en, i f nec es s aryi n t hei rpr ovi nce. ” The I J found thatC hen’ s “t es t i m onythatthe governm ent w oul d s t er i l i ze he rforfai l i ng t o paythe fi ne w as uns uppor t ed byanyl aw i n C hi na. ” The I J chal l enged Chen’ s cr edi bi l i tybypoi nt i ng t o a l ett erfr om C hen’ s hus band that n eg lected to m en ti o n the th rea ts of steri li za ti o n C h en d iscu ssed in h er testi m o n y . T h e IJ fo u n d that there w ere o ther inc o n sist en cies b etw ee n C h en ’s t esti m o n yan d h er h u sb an d ’s l ett er , and s peci fi cal l yi n r el at i on t o the degr ee of pr opertydamage done bybi r th contr ol cadr es t o C hen’ s hom e dur i ng herarr es ton D ece m ber8, 2004. T he I J al s o found that C hen w as “i ncr edul ous w hen s he coul d notexpl ai n w hys he omi t t ed fr om herw r i t t en appl i cat i on aboutthe 10 t o 20- m i nut e conf r ont at i on betw een he rfami l yand author i t i es at the h o sp it al. ” F inally , the IJ f o u n d that C h en “w asn ’tab le t o ex p lai n w h yD H S ’s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f

h e rd o c u m e n t s , w h i c h p u rp o r t e d t o b e m e d i c a l r e c o r d s o f h e rp r e g n a n c y, herabort i on of an e i ght - m onth pr egnanc y , emer gencytr eatm entof herhus band, and a n o tif ic a tio n f o r a f in e , w e re re v e a le d to b e u n a u th e n tic .” T he B I A di s m i s s ed C hen’ s appea l and deni ed herm ot i on t o r emand pr ocee di ngs bas ed on new evi dence . A s t o t he r emand m ot i on, the B I A concl uded thatC hen had fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe evi dence w as notavai l abl e ordi s cover abl e pr i ort o the r emoval hear i ng. W i th r es pectt o C hen’ s appea l , the B I A found “no c l earerr ori n the Im m i grat i on Judg e’s adv ers e credi bil i tyfi nd i ng based o n h er consi derat i on of the fal se5

document s pr es ent ed bythe r es pondentt ogetherw i th i ncons i s t enci es and omi s s i ons i dent i fi ed i n and betw een the r es pondent ’ s t es t i m ony , heras y l um appl i cat i on, and her hus band’ s l ett er . ” The B I A det erm i ned that“bec aus e [Chen’ s ] di s cr edi t ed s t orys erves as the b asis fo r ea ch fo rm o f re li ef sh e re q u ests, ” the IJ did n o t err i n d en y ing ea ch o f C h en ’s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. C hen appe al ed. II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). S e e A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 547 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . “[W ] hen the BI A a d o p t s th e f

i n d i n g s o f

th e I J a n d d i s c u s s e s s o me o f th e b a s e s f

o rth e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , we have a uthor i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and B I A . ” C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on for su b sta n tial e v id e n c e a n d w ill u p h o ld th a t d e ter m in a tio n “ u n les s a n yre a so n a b le adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on the B IA ’s d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n to re m a n d re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . See Vakke rv. A t t ’ y G en. , 519 F .3 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). “U n d e r th e a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd o f

re v iew , w e w ill notdi s turb the B I A ’ s deci s i on unl es s i tw as arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Jahj aga v. A t t ’

y G en. , 512 F. 3d 80, 82- 83 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot at i ons and ci t at i on o m itted).B ec au se th ere is no ex p ress statutoryau tho ri za ti o n fo r a m o ti o n to rem an d , the B IA 3 appr opr i at el yus ed the s t andar d fora mot i on t o r eopen r emoval pr ocee di ngs bas ed on new e v id e n c e . See I

n r e C oelho , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . 4 6 4 , 4 7 1 (B IA 1 9 9 2 ); s ee al s o Kor ytnyuk v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e c e rtific a te, d a ted D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 7 , sim p lysta tes th a t C h e n “ w a s p re g n a n t in 4 2004 w i thoutm arr i age, and vi ol at ed the fa m i l y - pl ani ng pol i cy . O n D ece m ber8, 2004, abort i on w as per form ed on C hen . . . and a f ami l y - pl anni ng fi ne of 12, 000 Y uan w as i m pos ed on her . C hen . . . has notpai d the fi ne y et . ” ( A R 45. ) W e not e thatthe amount 6 III . C h en p rese n ts tw o q u esti o n s fo r ou r rev iew : “W h ethe r th e IJ’s d en ial o f C h en ’s appl i cat i on foras y l um i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence ” ( Pet . B r . at7) , and w hether the B IA abu sed i t s di scr et i on i n d eny i ng C hen ’s m oti on t o rem and . W e answ er the fir st q u e stio n in th e a f

f irm a tiv e , the se c o n d in th e n e g a tiv e , an d w e w ill e x p lain o u r a n sw e rs in rev erse o rde r. A. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdeni ed C hen’ s m ot i on t o r emand bas ed on purpor t ed new evi dence . A s the B I A i ndi cat ed, a mot i on t o r emand pr ocee di ngs bas ed on new evi dence “s hal l notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappea r s t o the B oar d thatevi dence s oughtt o be off

er ed i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed o r p re se n ted a t th e f

o rm e r h e a rin g .” 8 C .F .R . 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ). In h e r b rie f , C h e n f a ils to 3 offe ra pl aus i bl e expl anat i on as t o w hyherow n new aff i davi t , the new aff

i davi tfr om C h en ’s m o ther, an d the n ew “c erti fica te” f rom the v il lage co m m ittee in C h en ’s hom et ow n w er e unava i l abl e t o C hen atthe t i m e of the r emoval hear i ng, and w e have not

4of the “f

ami l y - pl anni ng fi ne” di s cus s ed i n the ce r t i fi cat e i s di ffe r entonl yi n num berfr om the amountt es t i fi ed t o byC hen; the C hi nes e curr encynames “ Y uan” a nd “R M B ” ca n be u s e d in te rc h a n g e a b ly. See Zhang v. G onz al es , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 n . 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 fou nd on e i n the r ecord. Indeed , i tapp ears that C hen w as abl e t o g ai n p ossess i on of those document s w i thi n t he s pan of a few m onths ; s i nce Chen w as on not i ce of the G overnm ent ’ s fr aud i nves t i gat i on conce rni ng herdocument aryevi dence foroverni ne m o n ths b ef

o re the h ea ri n g (an d b ec au se C h en h ad b ee n in rem o v al pro ce ed ing s fo r m o re than tw o y ear s al t ogetherbefor e the hea r i ng) , w e fa i l t o s ee w hyC hen’ s new document aryevi dence coul d nothave be en pr ocur ed dur i ng thatt i m e. B. T he adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i n thi s cas e i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . A s the I J found, C hen di d notpr ovi de compl et e ans w er s t o the ques t i ons , and in p arti cu lar qu esti o n s 1 B an d 4 in p art B , in h er a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n . In a d d it ion , C h en ’s appl i cat i on negl ect ed t o m ent i on anydet ai l s conce rni ng the al t er cat i on betw een he r fami l yand the hos pi t al empl oy ees on D ece m ber9, 2004. T he l ett erfr om C hen’ s hus band m akes no m enti on of the threat s of st eri l i zat i on , m ade b ythe b i rth co ntr ol cadr es, conce rni ng C hen s houl d s he r eturn t o C hi na. T her e ar e s ever al di s cr epanc i es betw een the a c c o u n ts o f

C h e n a n d h e r h u sb a n d c o n c e rn in g th e d a tes , typ e , an d e x ten t o f th e p ro p e rty damage caus ed bythe bi r th contr ol cadr es . Fi nal l y , the i nves t i gat i on bythe G overnm ent re v e a led C h e n ’s h o sp ital re c o rd s to b e f ra u d u len t an d C h e n w a s, a n d still i s, u n a b le to re b u t th e in v e stig a tiv e re p o rt. F a c e d w ith th e se f a c ts, it w a s re a so n a b le f o r th e IJ to8

concl ude thatC hen’ s t es t i m onyw as embel l i s hed and i ncr edi bl e. Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.