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- 3898

___________ L I ANG 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 es pondent

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 088 378 045 I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e : A n n i e S . G a r c y

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

O ct ober6, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober8, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM L ian g C h e n p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

a n o rd e r 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 ”) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal r emoval o r d e r . 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.2

L i ang C hen i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2006 an d w as p lace d in rem o v al pro ce ed ing s. H e a p p li ed fo r asy lum an d related reli ef. C h en ’s cl ai m forr el i ef i s bas ed on per s ecut i on r el at ed t o C hi na’ s popul at i on pol i cy . C hen t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s w i fe ha d a gi r l i n 1991. C hen and hi s w i fe w enti nt o hi di ng outof thei rhom et ow n, and had a s econd c hi l d, al s o a gi r l , i n 1993. T he chi l d w as notal l ow ed, beca us e herbi r th w as t oo cl os e t o the fi r s tone–theys houl d have w ai t ed fi ve y ear s . T hey re m a in e d in h id in g a n d C h e n ’s w if e d id n o t r e p o rtf

o r f a m ily p la n n in g a p p o in tm e n ts . C hen hea r d fr om hi s par ent s thatfami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s had bee n l ooki ng forthem at hom e. C hen and hi s w i fe ha d a thi r d chi l d i n 1996; anothergi r l . T heyfel ttheyhad no choi ce butt o l eave thi s chi l d w i th a r el at i ve t o be r ai s ed. I n O ct oberof 1997, theyhad a b o y . T h e yre tu rn e d to C h e n ’s h o m e w ith th e th re e c h ild re n . S e v e n o r e ig h t f a m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s came i n the mi ddl e of the ni ghtand dr agged Chen’ s w i fe a w ayand t ook hert o a hos pi t al , w her e s he w as s t er i l i zed the fol l ow i ng day . C hen begge d the offi ci al s nott o t ake he raw ay , and begge d atthe hos pi t al thattheynotper form the o p e ra tio n , b u t th e yd id a n yw a y . C h e n a n d h is w if e w e re f in e d 3 0 ,0 0 0 R M B . T h e yp a id about15, 000, and off

i ci al s came everythr ee t o fi ve day s s eeki ng the r emai ni ng fee . C hen t es t i fi ed thatthe s t er i l i zat i on adver s el yaff ect ed hi s w i fe’ s phy s i cal and ment al heal th, wh i c h i n tu rn a f

f e c t e d h i m. Ch e n a l s o t e s t i f i e d th a th e l e f

tCh i n a l e g a l l ywi th h i s o wn pas s por t( al though i tappea r s thathe w entt o M exi co, and then pai d a s m uggl ert o t ake h im to the U n it ed S tat es).3

T h e I J f o u n d Ch e n c r e d i b l e , b u td e n i e d r e l i e f , r e l y i n g o n M a t t e ro f

J - S - , 2 4 I . & N. D ec. 52 0 (A . G . 20 08 ), w hich hel d thatthere i s no au t om at i c refugee st atus for the spo use o f s o m e o n e w h o h a d b e e n p e rs e c u te d o n th e b a s is o f c o e rc iv e p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l m a tte rs . O n appea l , C hen ar gued thatthe I J s houl d have gr ant ed r el i ef on the bas i s of hi s “other r e s i s t a n c e ” t o th e f

a mi l yp l a n n i n g p o l i c y . T h e Bo a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BI A) n o ted th a t af

terth e IJ’ s d e c isio n th is C o u rt h a d d e c id e d L in -Z h e n g v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 557 F. 3d 147 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) , w hi ch al s o hel d thatther e i s no aut om at i c r efuge e s t atus fors pous es of i ndi vi dual s s ubj ect ed t o coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol m eas ur es . T he B I A found thatC hen’ s “ac tof hi di ng s o thathe and hi s w i fe c oul d have a notherchi l d and s o thathi s w i fe c oul d avoi d herfami l ypl anni ng chec k- ups , hi s havi ng s ever al addi t i onal chi l dr en i n vi ol at i on of the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy , hi s cl ai m ed emot i onal s adnes s aft er the fo rced st eri l i zat i on , [and ] the im po si t i on of a f i ne [d i d n ot] ri se t o the l evel of past per s ecut i on, orcons t i tut e a ba s i s fora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, part i cul ar l ygi ven the abs ence of evi dence thatthe C hi nes e author i t i es ar e s eeki ng the r es pondentout . ” A. R. 3 - 4 . Ch e n f

i l e d a t i me l y , c o u n s e l e d p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. C hen’ s r el i ance on hi s w i fe’ s for ced s t er i l i zat i on cannotes t abl i s h hi s el i gi bi l i tyfor as y l um . A s a mat t erof l aw , ther e i s no aut om at i c r efuge e s t atus fors pous es of i ndi vi dual s s ubj ect ed t o coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es . L i n- Z heng, 557 F. 3d at 156- 57. B as ed on the s t atut orydefi ni t i on of “r efuge e, ” the C our ti n L i n- Z heng conc l uded thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o ext end r efuge e s t atus onl yt o the i ndi vi dual w ho had ei therbeenA s th e G o v e rn m e n t n o tes , the B IA d id , su a sp o n te, n o te th a t th e f in e d id n o t rise to 1 the l evel of per s ecut i on. T hi s s hor tm ent i on does notal l ow us t o r evi ew the i s s ue, b e c a u s e C h e n h a d n o t p re s e n te d , a t a n ytim e d u ri n g th e a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro c e e d in g s , a cl ai m thatthe fi ne w as s o oppr es s i ve thati tcons t i tut ed per s ecut i on. 4 for ced t o s ubm i tt o an i nvol unt aryabort i on ors t er i l i zat i on, had bee n per s ecut ed for fai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e, orhad a w el l - founded f earof that occurr i ng i n the futur e. I d. at156. T he C our ts t at ed thats pous es r emai n el i gi bl e for r e l i e f i n th e i ro wn r i g h tp r o v i d e d th a tth e yq u a l i f ya s a r e f u g e e b a s e d u p o n th e i ro wn per s ecut i on. See i d. at157 ( not i ng thatthe s t atut e conf er s r efuge e s t atus on a per s on w ho has been pe r s ecut ed for“otherr es i s t ance ” t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am or ha s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r t h a t h e o r s h e w ill b e s u b je c t to p e rs e c u tio n f

o r s u c h re s is ta n c e ). C hen ar gues thathe di d s uffe rper s ecut i on, as a fi ne of 30, 000 R M B w as i m pos ed, a n d h e su f

f e re d se v e re e m o tio n a l h a rm a n d lo st h is rig h t to h a v e m o re c h ild re n w h e n h is w if e w a s s ter ili z e d . C h e n tes tifie d th a t a f in e o f 3 0 ,0 0 0 R M B w a s im p o se d , tha t h e p a id about15, 000 of the fi ne, and thatoffi ci al s came cons t ant l yt o as k forpaym ent . A . R . 110- 11. C hen ar gues i n hi s br i ef he r e thatthe fi ne w as s o “huge” thati t“amount [ed] t o the d e p riv a tio n o f

e c o n o m ic m e a n s to su rv iv a l.” P e tit io n e r’s B rie f a t 1 3 . H o w e v e r, C h e n d id no tt est i fyas t o an yextr em e fi nan ci al diffi cult i es on ac cou nt of the fine, no r di d h e rai se th e is s u e in h is b ri e f

to th e B IA . W e a re th e re f o re p re c lu d e d f

ro m re v ie w in g th e is s u e . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ); A b d u lr ah m an v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 1C hen al so w ai ved anychall eng e t o the den i al of rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst 2 T or tur e, as he fa i l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef. C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d at 2 3 5 . 5 C h en sim il arlyd id n o t argu e in h is brief to th e B IA that h e w an ted to h av e m o re chi l dr en, nordi d he t es t i fybefor e the I J thathe w ant ed t o have mor e chi l dr en. C hen thus f a i l e d t o e x h a u s tth e a r g u me n tb e f o r e th e BI A, a n d we ma yn o tc o n s i d e ri t . 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ). C h en d id arg u e in h is brief to th e B IA that h e e x p erien ce d em o ti o n al ha rm b e c a u s e h e a n d h is w if

e w e re f o rc e d to g iv e th e irth ir d c h ild to a n o th e r f a m ily to ra is e . H ow ever , C hen has notr ai s ed thatcl ai m i n hi s openi ng br i ef he r e, s o i ti s w ai ved. C hen v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 1 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T o the e x tent w e m ayco n side r a g e n e r a l i z e d c l a i m th a tCh e n e x p e r i e n c e d e mo t i o n a l h a rm th a tc o n s t i tu t e d p e r s e c u t i o n , we fi nd thatthe emot i onal di ffi cul tyC hen expe r i ence d does notr i s e t o the l evel of p e rs e c u tio n . C hen has notm etthe as y l um s t andar d of s how i ng thathe w as orw i l l be per s ecut ed on acc ountof “otherr es i s t ance ” t o C hi na’ s popul at i on pol i cy , and he thus cannotm eetthe hi ghers t andar d forw i thhol di ng orr emoval . Shar darv. A s hcr oft , 382 F. 3d 318, 324 ( 3d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . We wi l l th e r e f o r e d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 2