2008 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 Third C irc uit 3-25-2008 

# Lin v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4633

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1391. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/1391NOT 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. 06- 4633

____________________ Z I Y U A N L IN a /k / a L I N Z I YUAN, 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 a D eci s i on of the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 96 336 157) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e M i r l ande Tadal

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

M ar ch 13, 2008 B efor e: FU E N T E S, C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges and V A N A N T W E R PE N , Seni or C i r cui tJ udge. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 25, 2008)

__________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Z i Y u a n L in p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

a n a d v e rse B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( BI A) d e c i s i o n . On Oc t o b e r6 , 2 0 0 6 , th e BI A d e n i e d Li n ’ s r e q u e s t s f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu re (C A T ). Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s deci s i on, and w e w i l l ther efor e denythe pet i t i on f o rr e v i e w. I. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) . T he “e xtr emel ydefe r ent i al ” s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d appl i es t o ourr evi ew o f th e B IA ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t. C h e n v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i ons on s uch i s s ues as pas tper s ecut i on, the l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on, and the l i kel i hood of t or tur e onl yi f “the evi dence not onl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 4 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). II. As y l u m ma yb e g r a n t e d t o a l i e n s wh o a r e “ r e f u g e e s ” wi th i n th e me a n i n g o f 8 U. S . C. § 1101( a) ( 42) . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) . G ener al l y , a r efuge e i s s om eone w ho demonstr at es an i nabi l i tyorunw i l l i ngnes s t o r eturn t o hi s orherpr i orcountryof r es i dence “bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on” on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . Such pr ot ect ed gr ounds i ncl ude r ace , r el i gi on, nati on al i ty , m em bershi p in a part i cularsoci al group , and po l i t i cal op i nion. Id. P ast3

per s ecut i on r equi r es pr oof of “ ( 1) one orm or e i nci dent s r i s i ng t o the l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) thati s ‘ on acc ountof’ one of the s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds ; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed e ith e r b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r b yf o rc e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is e ith e r u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to contr ol . ” M ul anga v. A s hcr oft , 349 F. 3d 123, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hi s C our thas expl ai ned thatper s ecut i on “i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve rys or tof tr ea tm en t ou r soc ietyreg ard s as o ff en sive . ” F ati n v . IN S , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1993) . Per s ecut i on i ncl udes s uch gr ave ha r m s as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and e c o n o m ic re s tr ic tio n s s o s e v e re th a t th e yc o n s titu te a th re a t to lif e o r f re e d o m .” Id . a t 1 2 4 0 . A s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on gi ves r i s e t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f ear o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 1 ). I n addi t i on, w i thhol di ng of r emoval m aybe gr ant ed i f an “ al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened” i n the countryof r emoval beca us e of one of the fi ve pr ot ect ed gr ounds listed a b o v e . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). T h e a lien b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t h e w ill m or e l i kel ythan notfac e per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. See I N S v. St evi c, 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 4 2 9 -3 0 (1 9 8 4 ). F in a lly , an a p p lica n t f

o r re lief u n d e r th e C A T b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g “ th a t it is m o re li k elythan n o t th at he o r she w o u ld b e torture d if rem o v ed to the p rop o sed co u n try of r emoval . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . T he s t andar d forr el i ef “ has no s ubj ect i ve c o m p o n e n t, bu t in ste a d re q u ire s th e a lien to e sta b lish , b yo b jec tiv e e v id e n c e th a t h e is ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot at i on m arks o m itt e d ). W e h a v e h e ld th a t “e v e n c ru e l an d in h u m a n b e h a v io r b yg o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls4

m aynoti m pl i cat e the t or tur e r egul at i ons , ” i d. , beca us e “[ t ] or tur e i s an extr eme for m of cruel and i nhum an tr eatm entand does noti ncl ude l es s erform s of cruel , i nhum an ordegr adi ng tr ea tm en t or p u n ishm en t th at do n o t am o u n t t o tortu re.” 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(2). III . L i n i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na. H e cl ai m s t o have s u f f e re d p e rs e c u tio n in C h in a b e c a u s e h e s o ld F a lu n G o n g p u b lic a tio n s in h is b o o k s to re . Speci fi cal l y , s t art i ng i n Sept ember2002, L i n s ol d Fal un G ong m at er i al s , even though he k n e w th a t th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t h a d b a n n e d th e o rg a n iza tio n a n d p ro h ib ited th e sa le o f its m a ter ials , b e c a u se h e w a s a b le to m a k e a sig n if ica n t p ro f

it o n th e sa les . L in a lleg e s th a t in N ovember2002, w hen the author i t i es di s cover ed he w as s el l i ng Fal un G ong m at er i al s , they confi s cat ed hi s bus i nes s l i cens e. T he author i t i es i nform ed Li n’ s father , w ho w as m i ndi ng the s t or e w hen theyr ai ded i t , thatL i n had t o r eportt o the pol i ce. L i n w as outof t ow n on b u sin e ss a n d h is f

a th e r c a lled h im a n d in stru c ted h im n o t to re tu rn h o m e . A s a re su lt, instead o f re p o rt ing to the p o li ce , L in w en t i n to h iding in M inh o u , a tow n o v er tw o h o u rs a w a y . T he pol i ce r eturned t o the s t or e aga i n i n D ece m ber2002, i n s ear ch of Li n. W hen the p o lice f a iled to f in d h im , the ysh u t d o w n th e sto re a n d iss u e d a w a rra n t f o r h is a rre st. L in t es t i fi ed athi s hear i ng thatthe author i t i es al s o came t o M i nhou i n s ear ch of hi m , butdi d not f in d h im . L in liv e d w ith h is c o u sin in M in h o u , w o rk in g in h is c a rp e n trysh o p , u n til S eptem ber 200 4, w hen he fled t o the U nit ed S t at es w i th the ass i st ance o f sm ug gler s.5

A s s um i ng, as the B I A di d, thatL i n al l eges per s ecut i on on the bas i s of i m put ed p o lit ica l o p in io n , n o n e o f th e in c id e n ts L in c ites c o m p e l re v e rsa l o f th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to denyL i n as y l um . A s ki ng L i n t o r eportt o the pol i ce a nd confi s cat i ng hi s bus i nes s l i cens e do notcons t i tut e the s or tof gr ave ha r m neede d t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on. See F a tin , 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 0 . N o r d o e s s h u tti n g d o w n L in ’s s h o p f o r th e sa le o f

b a n n e d m a ter ials c o m p e l a f

in d in g o f p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n im p u ted p o lit ica l o p in io n . T o th e c o n tra ry , L in liv e d s a f e ly in a to w n ju s t a f

e w h o u rs a w a yf

o r o v e r t w o y e a rs b e f

o re f le e in g th e c o u n tr y . A l though L i n t es t i fi ed thatthe pol i ce c ame l ooki ng forhi m once i n M i nhou, he pr es ent ed no otherevi dence thattheycont i nued t o s ear ch forhi m . I n addi t i on, L i n di d notpr es entany evi dence thathe i s l i kel yt o fac e futur e per s ecut i on. Subst ant i al evi dence thus s uppor t s the B IA ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t L in ’s a s y lu m c la im m u s t f a il. Fur therm or e, w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s deci s i on not t o w i thhol d L i n’ s r emoval . T he i s ol at ed natur e of the i nci dent s , hi s r el at i ve s afe tyi n C hi na w hi l e s t ay i ng w i th hi s cous i n, and the s afe tyof hi s fami l ys t i l l l i vi ng i n C hi na s uppor tthe B IA ’s f in d in g th a t p e rs e c u tio n is n o t a c le a r p ro b a b ility u p o n h is re tu rn . F in a lly , L in h a s n o t p ro v id e d a n ye v id e n c e th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w ill be t or tur ed upon hi s r eturn t o C hi na. See Lukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 182- 83 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . L i n ar gued bef or e the B I A thatbeca us e he f l ed C hi na w i th the as s i s t ance of s m uggl er s , he w oul d be i m pr i s oned and t or tur ed upon hi s r eturn. Y et , L i n fai l ed t o m ake thi s ar gum ent , oranyother , i n s uppor tof hi s C A T cl ai m i n thi s appea l . I n anyevent , as the B I A corr ect l ynot ed, L i n “pr es ent ed no obj ect i ve evi dence thatauthor i t i es w oul d concl ude6

th a t h is d e p a rtu re f

ro m C h in a w a s illeg a l, giv e n th a t h e u se d h is o w n p a ss p o rt a n d a v a lid tr avel perm i t . ” A ppendi x ( A pp. ) 25. N ordi d he “pr offe revi dence of w hatharm w oul d be tr ig g e re d ” if

“ th e g o v e rn m e n t d id c o n c lu d e th a t h is e m ig ra tio n w a s ille g a l.” Id . a t 2 5 -2 6 . T he B I A , ther efor e, corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatL i n cannotobt ai n C A T r el i ef. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yL in ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .