2007 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 12-12-2007 

# W 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 . 06-2221

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_2007

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 2007 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 " W an g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 91. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/91H on. J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef Judge , U ni t ed S t at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 2221

CU I P I NG WANG, Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF 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 der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 96- 214- 598) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. D ani el A . M ei s ner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber10, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber12, 2007 )

OP I NI ON“ R M B ” is th e sy m b o l f o r th e C h in e se c u rre n c y , ren m in b i, 1 a n d 2 0 ,0 0 0 R M B e q u a ls a p p ro x im a te ly $ 2 ,0 0 0 . 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. C ui Pi ng W ang ( “W ang”) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the deni al bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) of her app l i cat i on for asy l um , w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T o rtu re (“C A T ”). I. W ang, w ho w as bor n i n 1986 i n t he Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, en tered the U n it ed S tat es o n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 3 , w ith a f alse p assp o rt . S h e told the a irp o rt D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y( “D H S”) offi cerw ho i nt ervi ew ed her( i n M andar i n) t hatherpar ent s arr anged f orhert r i p, w hi ch w oul d cos tthem $60, 000, and thather par ent s w ant ed hert o come t o t he U ni t ed St at es “t o earn m oney . ” A tt he mer i t s hear i ng on W ang’ s appl i cat i on, hel d on O ct ober5, 2004, W ang t es t i fi ed i n M andar i n, w i t h t he ai d of a tr ans l at or , thats he had l eftC hi na bec aus e her par ent s had vi ol at ed the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cybygi vi ng bi r t h t o t hr ee c hi l dr en, and by w a iti n g o n lytw o y e a rs, ra th e r th a n th e re q u ire d f o u r y e a rs, b e f

o re g iv in g b irth to th e ir se c o n d c h ild . S h e tes tifie d th a t h e r p a re n ts w e re f in e d 2 0 ,0 0 0 R M B b yv ill a g e o f f icia ls 1 i n J anuary1992, s hor t l yaft erherfatherw as for ci bl ys t er i l i zed, butthattheyw er e t oo p o o r to p a y . S h e a lso tes tifie d th a t th e v ill a g e c a d re c a m e b yth e h o u se n u m e ro u s tim e s to3

have he rpar ent s payt he fi ne, and thats he and he rs i s t erw er e t aken br i efl yt o a pol i ce stat ion in 1 9 9 3 w h en h er p are n ts w ere n o t ho m e, t o p ressu re h er p are n ts t o p ay . F u rth er, herm ot herw as det ai ned a s econd t i m e i n M ay2002, al t hough the I J r efe r ence d an o v e rse a s in v e stig a tio n th a t q u e stio n e d th e v a lid ityo f th e c e rtific a te o f

d e ten tio n a lleg e d ly i s s ued byt he Publ i c Secur i t yB ur eau. W hen the I J as ked W ang w hyherpar ent s di d not payt he fi ne w hi l e theys pent“s ever al $10, 000” t o s end hert o t he U ni t ed St at es , W ang ans w er ed thatherpar ent s “fe el t hos e fi nes ar e unj us tfi nes . ” In h is o ra l d e c isio n , the IJ n o ted th a t, bu t f o r h e r y o u n g a g e , “I m ig h t v e ryw e ll fi nd t hatt he appl i cat i on her e i s fr i vol ous . ” A pp. at37. T he I J found no evi dence thatt he a u th o rities h a d p re v e n ted W a n g f ro m g o in g to sc h o o l in C h in a d e sp ite h e r p a re n ts s til l ow i ng t he fi ne. T he I J fur t hers t at ed thatchi l dr en of thos e w ho r es i s tcoer ci ve popul at i on c o n tr o l p o lic ie s a re n o t d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n p e rs e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f p o litic a l o p in io n . T he I J al s o r ej ect ed W ang’ s cl ai m t hats he fe ar ed per s ecut i on beca us e s he l eftC hi na i l l egal l y , r efe r enci ng the St at e D epart m ent ’ s pr ofi l e of Chi na forJ une 2004 w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatr etur nees ar e det ai ned onl yforthe t i m e nee ded t o arr ange thei rtr avel hom e, fi nes ar e r ar e, and ther e have been no r epor t ed ca s es of abus e. Fi nal l y , the I J found that W a n g ’s a irp o rt sta tem e n t g iv e n to th e D H S o f f ice r w a s re liab le a n d su p p o rte d h is c o n c lu sio n th a t W a n g h a d f a iled to p ro v e p a st p e rse c u tio n in C h in a o r a re a so n a b le w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n s u f

f ic ie n t to q u a lif

yh e r f o r a s y lu m o r r e la te d re lie f. T h e B IA a f

f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n , w ith o u t o p in io n . W a n g tim e lyp e tit io n e d th is4

c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. II. W e need no tdis cuss the ap pli cable l aw regar ding t he p roof n eeded t o est abli sh el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um , as t he part i es ar e w el l aw ar e of i t . Suffi ce i tt o not e thatw e have h eld th at “p erse cu ti o n d o es n o t enc o m p ass a ll tr ea tm en t th at ou r soc ietyreg ard s as u n fa ir , u n just, o r ev en u n law fu l or u n co n sti tuti o n al. ” F ati n v . IN S , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1993) . W ang i s not“a pe r s on w ho has been f or ced t o abor ta pr egnanc yort o under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orforot herr es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, ” and he nce c a n n o t b e “ d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n p e rs e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f p o litic a l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( B ) . N ordi d s he pr ovi de anyevi dence thats he “ha s a w el l - founded f eart hat [s ] he w i l l be s ubj ectt o s uch pr ocedur es orw i l l be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on forr es i s t i ng s uch p ro c e d u re s . . . .” W a n g v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c itin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(B )). I n t h i s c a s e , s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n ya s y l u m. No r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be “c om pel l ed t o concl ude” thatthe I J ’ s det erm i nat i on w as inco rrect. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). W a n g c o n ten d s th a t th e f in e im p o se d o n h e r p a re n ts a n d th e e c o n o m ic p riv a tio n it caus ed, t he cont i nuous vi s i t s of the vi l l age c adr e, herow n det ai nm enti n 1993, and her m ot her ’ s det ent i on t hats ame y earas w el l as i n 2002, cons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence ofT he I J not ed thathe w as uncert ai n w hethert hi s cons t i tut ed 2 an arr es t . I ts houl d also b e not ed thati tappea r s , bas ed on the r ecor d befor e t hi s cour t , t hat t he I J m ayhave c onfus ed the amount of t i m e W ang w as det ai ned. A l t hough t he I J not es t hatW ang and hers i s t erw er e hel d unt i l thei rm otherr eturned “[ a] bout10 day s or t w o w ee ks l at er , ” A . R . at39, W ang’ s appl i cat i on and t es t i m ony i ndi cat e thatherm ot hercame “i m m edi at el y ” upon l ear n ing he r daught er s w er e t aken byt he vi l l age a uthor i t i es , and i tw as her m o th e r w h o w a s th e n h e ld b yth e a u th o ri tie s f o r f if te e n d a y s . 5 pas tper s ecut i on. W e have r ej ect ed the ar gum entthata chi l d w hos e par ent s have be en s ubj ect ed t o t he C hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es can be deemed t o have be en per s ecut ed, W ang, 405 F. 3d at143, and W ang pr oduced no c ont r aryevi dence . She w as notfi ned and “had no tr oubl e r egi s t er i ng fors chool and att endi ng s chool i n [C hi na] . ” A . R . at40; s ee W ang, 405 F. 3d at143. T he ec onom i c depr i vat i on s he al l eged he rfami l yt o have su f f e re d a s a c o n se q u e n c e o f th e a p p ro x im a tely$ 2 ,0 0 0 f in e d o e s n o t am o u n t to p e rs e c u tio n b e c a u s e it w a s n o t s o s e v e re a s to “ th re a te n [ W a n g ’s ] l if e o r f re e d o m ,” id ., w her e W ang’ s t es t i m onyi ndi cat ed thatherpar ent s w er e w i l l i ng and/ orabl e t o s pend

“ s e v e ra l $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ” f

o r h e r t o c o m e to th e U n ite d S ta te s . A lth o u g h W a n g tes tifie d sh e w a s ta k e n o u t o f h e r h o m e b yth e v ill a g e c a d re in J anuary1993 and hel d unt i l herm otherappea r ed, ther e i s no evi dence W ang w as ever 2 agai n det ai ned af

t er1993, and the verybr i ef pe r i od of det ent i on w i t houtanyevi dence of m i s t r eatm entdoes notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. See K i bi nda v. A t t ’ yG en. , 477 F . 3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( f i v e - d a y d e t e n t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n m i n o ri n j u r y r e q u i r i n g o n l y a few s t i t ches does notamount t o per s ecut i on) ; s ee a l s o Fat i n, 12 F. 3d at1240 ( per s ecut i on6

i ncl udes “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e that theyco n sti tute a thre at t o li fe o r free d o m ”). A lth o u g h o u r de cisi o n s h av e c au ti o n ed ag ains t ov er-reli an ce o n an airpo rt sta tem e n t, “e sp e c iallyw h e n th e IJ . . . l a c k [ s] im p o rta n t in f o rm a tio n a s to th e m a n n e r in w hi ch the i nt ervi ew w as conduct ed, ” H e C hun C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 223- 24 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), h e re , the IJ f o u n d th e a irp o rt sta tem e n t to b e re liab le b e c a u se it w a s c lea rly re c o rd e d th ro u g h a M a n d a rin lan g u a g e in terp re ter , itlac k e d a n yin d ica tio n th a t W a n g d id notunder s t and the ques t i ons , and manyof the bi ogr aphi cal ans w er s coi nci ded w i t h her appl i cat i on i nform at i on. T he r ecor d does notcompel us t o r eac h a contr aryconcl us i on. T h e IJ rejec ted W an g ’s claim that sh e h as a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on bas ed on both herpar ent s ’ r es i s t ence t o C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es and on heri l l egal departur e. T he I J found thatW ang had pr es ent ed no evi dence thather fea r , even i f as s um ed t o be cr edi bl e, w as r eas onabl e. W ang conc eded thats he had not had pr obl ems s i nce 1993; t he mer e thr eatof the fi ne orthe vi s i t s of the vi l l age c adr e, or even po ssi ble det enti on , i s i nsuff i ci entl yi m m i nen tand m enacing to const i tute past per s ecut i on ort o cr eat e a f earof futur e per s ecut i on. See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 164- 65 & n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[U ] nful fi l l ed thr eat s m us tbe of a hi ghl yi m m i nentand m en ac ing n ature in o rde r t o co n sti tute p erse cu ti o n . ”). A s t o t he s econd ba s i s forheral l eged f ear , al t hough ther e i s s om e evi dence that C hi nes e i ndi vi dual s w ho i l l egal l ydepart ed maybe s ubj ect ed t o admi ni s t r at i ve det ent i ono r, in ra re c a se s, f in e s u p o n th e ir re tu rn , the re is n o t su f f icie n t ev id e n c e th a t W a n g w o u ld be in that posi t i on i f returned to C hina. “[P ]ot enti al prosecuti on for vi olat i ng [C hina’ s] i l l egal departur e l aw on i t s fac e does notgi ve r i s e t o a fe arof per s ecut i on . . . . ” Si v. Sl at t ery , 864 F. Supp. 397, 406 ( S. D . N . Y . 1994) ( ci t ed i n C hang v. I . N . S. , 119 F. 3d 1055, 1063 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ) ; s ee a l s o L i v. I . N . S. , 92 F. 3d 985, 988 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( “C r i m i nal p ro se c u tio n f

o r illeg a l d e p a rtu re is g e n e ra llyn o t co n sid e re d to b e p e rse c u tio n .”). T h e re is n o thing in this reco rd to su g g est th at W an g w il l be p rose cu ted f o r he r i ll eg al de p arture w h ile o th e r v io lato rs w ill n o t. Be c a u s e we h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a tWa n g h a s n o te s t a b l i s h e d a c l a i m f o ra s y l u m, we need nots epar at el yanal y ze w hethers he i s ent i t l ed t o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . See Z u b ed a v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 -70 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). M o reo v er, w e re ject W an g ’s cl ai m s undert he C A T , as w e agr ee w i t h t he I J that“[t ] he r ecor d i s . . . voi d of i nform at i on w hi ch w oul d i ndi cat e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatthe governm entof C hi na w oul d t or tur e [W ang] upon r eturn t o hercountr y . ” A . R . at45. III . B eca us e the I J ’ s deci s i on nott o gr antW ang as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , or CA T p r o t e c t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , 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.

7