2005 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 12-7-2005 

# Y ang 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 . 04-3362

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_2005

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 2005 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
" Y an g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 151. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/151NOT 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. 04- 3362 D i ng Pi ng Y ang, 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 sp o n d e n t. O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 95- 378- 329)

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

N ovember14, 2005 B efore: R O T H , F U E N T E S , and B E C K E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber7, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. D i ng Pi ng Y ang pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on2

A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) a f

f irm in g th e re

jec tio n b ya n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) o f h is appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). W e f ind that there is sub stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe IJ’s and the B I A ’ s deci s i ons and ac cor di ngl ydenyY ang’ s pet i t i on. I . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory B e c a u s e w e w r i t e o n l yf o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e w ill r e c o u n t o n ly th e e s s e n tia l f a c ts . A nat i ve of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, Y ang i l l egal l yent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on or ar ound J ul y4, 2001. H e conc edes thathe i s r emovabl e underSect i on 237( a) ( 1) ( A ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , 8 U . S. C . 1 2 2 7 (a) ( 1) ( A ) , buthas appl i ed foras y l um and w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l p ro te c tio n u n d e r C A T . Y ang i s t hi r t y - ei ghty ear s ol d and has a w i fe a nd tw o chi l dr en bac k i n C hi na. Y ang w as t he onl yw i t nes s t o t es t i fyathi s hear i ng befor e the I J . Y ang cl ai m s thati f he i s r emoved fro m the U n it ed S tat es a n d return ed to C h ina, he an d h is f a m ily w ill b e su b

ject t o C h ina’s coer ci ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es and pos s i bl yfi ned. A t hi s hear i ng, Y ang t es t i fi ed thatone w e e k a f ter h is w if

e g a v e b irth to th e ir d a u g h ter in 1 9 9 1 , C h in e s e f a m ilyp lan n in g o f

f icia ls or der ed hi s w i fe t o have a n i nt r aut er i ne devi ce ( “I U D ”) i ns ert ed. H e furt hert es t i fi ed that a ft er t he bi rth of the chi l d hi s w i fe w as requi red by C hinese fam i l y planni ng off i ci al s to r epor tforphy s i cal exami nat i ons fourt i m es pery ear . I n 1994, Y ang cl ai m s , hi s w i fe w ent t o a pri vat e doct or w i t hout governm ent perm i s s i on t o have t he IU D r emoved s o t hats he and Y a n g c o u ld h a v e a d d iti o n a l ch ild re n . T h e c o u p le th e n m o v e d to a n o th e r v illa g e s o a s to3

al l ow Y ang’ s w i fe t o avoi d herm andat ory quar t er l y exami nat i ons , and s he s oon t her eaf t er again becam e pregn ant. Y ang cl ai m s that hi s w i fe w as forced t o a b o rt th is s econ d fetus. T her eaf t er, Y ang and hi s w i fe a chi eved a t hi r d pr egnanc y . T he chi l d r es ul t antof that pr egnanc yw as born i n 1996. Y ang as s ert s t hatt w o day s aft ert he bi r t h of hi s s econd c hi l d, C h in e se o f

f icia ls th re a ten e d h is w if e w ith f o rc e d ste riliza tio n . T h e o f f icia ls c laim e d th a t if Y ang’ s w i fe w oul d notbe s t er i l i zed, Y ang w oul d have t o be, an d tha ti f nei t herof them compl i ed, t heyw oul d hav e t o paya fi ne of 4, 000 yuan. T hough t he coupl e aga i n fl ed and es cape d t hi s fat e fora t i m e, Y ang cl ai m s t hat hi s w i fe w as s t er i l i zed i n A pr i l of 2001. Y ang as s er t s t hathe fl ed C hi na for the U ni t ed St at es l at erthaty earoutof fe arthathe t oo m i ghtbe s t er i l i zed. O n A pr i l 24, 2002, T he U ni t ed St at es I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( now par tof the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y ) i ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee d i n g s b ys e rvi ng Y ang w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear . C oncedi ng r emovabi l i t y , Y ang ar gued i n hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs t hathe s houl d be gr ant ed as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval fr om t he U ni t ed St at es . A tt he concl us i on of the r emoval pr ocee di ngs , the I J det erm i ned thatY ang l acke d cr edi bil i t yand deni ed Y ang’ s appl i cat i ons . I n addi t i on t o herhol di ng, t he IJ not abl y i ncl uded i n heropi ni on t he conc l us i ons t hat : ( a) i f Y ang’ s w i fe ha d i n fac tal r eady been st er i l i zed, Y ang s houl d have no fear of fu ture persecut i on i n the form of b ei ng him sel f st eri l i zed b ecause the C hinese author i t i es w oul d no l onger be conce r ned t hat Y ang and hi s w i fe m i ghthave mor e chi l dr en; and ( b) t he s ugges t i on t hatt he C hi nes e governm entw oul d coer ce a n abor t i on atei ght4

m ont hs ’ ges t at i on w as i ncr edi bl e. Y ang appea l ed t o the B I A , w hi ch adopt ed the I J ’ s hol di ng, b u t a d d e d th a t it d isa g re e d w ith th e tw o su p p lem e n tal c o n c lu sio n s ju st n o ted . Y a n g tim e ly f iled a n a p p e a l o f

th e B IA ’s d ism iss a l to th is C o u rt.

I I . D i s cus s i on B eca us e the B I A bot h adopt ed the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s ed s om e of the bas es of the I J ’ s deci s i on, w e r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both t he B I A and the I J . C hen v. As h c r o f t , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, we a f f i r m. A . A dver s e C r edi bi l i t yand Pas tPer s ecut i on W e r evi ew adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . G ao v. As h c r o f t , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Un d e rth i s d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w, we m us tuphol d t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on and the B I A ’ s aff i r m ance ther eof unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . H ence , forY ang t o pr evai l , the evi dence of cr edi bi l i t ym us tbe s o s t r ongl yi n hi s favort hatt hi s C our tconcl udes ther e i s s i m pl yno w aya compet ent a d ju d ica to r c o u ld h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t h e a n d h is w if e lac k e d c re d ib ili ty . W e sh o u ld not e, how ever , t hatadver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons “bas ed on s pecul at i on or conj ectur e, r athert han on evi dence i n t he r ecor d, ar e r ever s i bl e. ” D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (en b an c) (q u o ti n g G ao , 2 9 9 F . 3 d at 27 2 ). H e re , the re is a m p le e v id e n c e th a t th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n s a s to Y a n g ’s c re d ib ili ty w er e s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. T hough ther e ar e manyexampl es , cert ai n di s cr epanc i es5

st and ou t . F or i nst ance, Y ang aton e po i nt t est i fi ed thathis w i fe w as st eri l i zed in A ug ust of 1996, t w o day s aft ergi vi ng bi r t h t o t hei rs econd c hi l d, onl yl at ert o as s ertthats he w as s t er i l i zed ne ar l yfi ve y ear s l at er , i n A pr i l of 2001. T hi s i s nota s m al l m i s t ake of a fe w day s , buta cruci al di s cr epanc yas t o the s t r onges tevi dence i n favorof Y ang’ s bei ng g ra n te d a s y lu m , n a m e ly h is w if e ’s p a s t p e rs e c u tio n in th e f o rm o f f o rc e d s te ri liz a tio n . T her e w er e al s o s ubs t ant i al i ncons i s t enci es as t o how faral ong Y ang’ s w i fe’ s pr egnanc y w a s w h e n it w a s d is c o v e re d . A n o th e r e x a m p le o f

th e re a so n a b len e ss o f

th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n sp rin g s f

ro m Y a n g ’s a ss e rtio n th a t o n e o f th e re a so n s h e f

led C h in a w a s to avo i d the 4, 00 0 yuan fi ne h e w as subj ectt o fo r vi olat i ng C hinese fam i l yplanni ng l aw s, w hi l e att he s ame t i m e cl ai m i ng t hathe pai d r oughl y400, 000 yuan i n or dert o gett o t he U n ited S tate s. W e a g re e th a t Y a n g ’s a ss e rtio n th a t h e w o u ld p a y4 0 0 ,0 0 0 yu a n in o rd e r to avoi d a fi ne one hundr edth of thatamount s t r ai ns cr edul i t y . A s thes e exa m pl es i l l us t r at e, t her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. W e a d d that tho u g h w e a re a ff irm ing the IJ’s d ec isi o n , w e a g ree w ith the B IA ’s r el uct ance t o embra ce c ert ai n of the I J ’ s det erm i nat i ons . T he I J ’ s as s ert i on thatt o t he e x ten t h is w if

e h a s b e e n ste rilize d Y a n g h a s n o f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n is w ith o u t m e rit, as s uch a s t er i l i zat i on, i f pr oven, w oul d es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on and the pr es um pt i on ofT he B I A has ext ended a s y l um pr ot ect i on t o i ncl ude the hus band of a w om an w ho 1 has been s t er i l i zed orot herw i s e s ubj ectt o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, as d ef ined b y8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(B ). In re C -Y -Z , 2 1 I. & N . D ec . 9 1 5 , 9 1 8 (B IA 1 9 9 7 ). In C -Y -Z , the B IA f o u n d th a t a h u sb a n d o f

a w o m a n f

o rc e f u llyste rilize d c o u ld “s t and i n hers hoes ” i n t he cont extof hi s pur s ui tof as y l um . I d. T he B I A added that “[i ] nas m uch as t he appl i canthas adequa t el yes t abl i s hed thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on, t her e i s a r egul at or ypr es um pt i on t hathe has a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 1 ).” Id . a t 9 1 9 . 6 futur e per s ecut i on. W e al s o bel i eve the I J l acke d foundat i on t o fi nd i t“i ncr edi bl e that 1 t he governm entof C hi na w oul d for ce a n abor t i on upon a w om an w ho w as ei ghtm ont hs pr egnant ” as a gene r al m att er . I J O pp. at15. I n s pi t e of ourdi s agr eementw i t h t he I J on th e se p o in ts, h o w e v e r, w e n o n e th e les s c o n c lu d e th a t th e IJ h a d su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to fi nd t he t ot al i t yof Y ang’ s t es t i m onyt o be i ncr edi bl e and t o concl ude thathe has not s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on i n C hi na. B . L i kel i hood of Futur e Per s ecut i on W e al s o aff

i r m t he I J ’ s and B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatY ang fa i l ed t o s how he wo u l d mo r e l i k e l yt h a n n o tf a c e p e r s e c u t i o n i f

f o r c e d t o r e tu r n t o Ch i n a . S e e Ca o v . AG o f th e U n ited S tate s, 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (s tatin g “ m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” sta n d a rd ). G iv e n Y a n g ’s f a ilu re to e sta b lish p a st p e rse c u tio n , h is c laim th a t h e is lik e lyto f a c e f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n f

a ils a s w e ll, a s it is u p o n th e f o rm e r w h ic h h is la tte r c la im re s ts . S e e , e.g ., Y a n g B r. at 2 4 -2 5 (a rg u in g th a t Y a n g “ su f f e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n a n d [ is] lik e ly t o fac e persecut i on up on return t o C hina on a ccou nt of hi s hi st oryof v i olat i on of [ i t s] fa m il yp lann ing p o li cy ”). T h ere is no thing in the rec o rd to ind icate tha t Y an g is m o re7

l i kel yt han nott o be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on s houl d he r eturn t o C hi na. I I I . C oncl usi on F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e d e n yY a n g ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . H e n c e , a fort i ori , w e re jec t h is a p p lica tio n f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l.