2010 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 7-19-2010 

# B in Ou 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 . 09-3956

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_2010

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 2010 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 " B in Ou v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 943. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/9431 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- 3956

___________ BI N WEI OU; J I AN Z OU, P eti ti o n ers 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 an O r derof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s ( A gencyN os . A 099- 592- 455 and A 099- 592- 456) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e M i r l ande Tadal

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

J ul y14, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y19, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

B i n W ei O u and J i an Zou (“ pet i t i oner s ”) s eek r evi ew of a f i nal r emoval o r d e re n t e r e d b yt 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” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w,2

we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. Pet i t i oner s ar e ci t i zens of C hi na fr om Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. A ft erent er i ng t he Un i t e d S t a t e s i n 1 9 9 8 wi t h o u ti n s p e c t i o n , th e yma r r i e d h e r e i n 2 0 0 4 a n d h a v e h a d two chi l dr en: a boy , bor n i n 2004, and a gi r l , i n 2006. Pet i t i oner s appl i ed foras y l um i n 2006 bas ed on a f

earof futur e per s ecut i on, i n t he form of for ced s t er i l i zat i on, forvi ol at i ng C hi na’ s fami l y - pl anni ng pol i ci es . Pet i t i oner s conce ded thei rr emovabi l i t ybefor e the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ). T h e ytes tifie d a t a h e a rin g a n d su b m itt e d n u m e ro u s d o c u m e n ts i n s uppor tof thei rcont ent i on t hatt heyhave a w el l - founded f earthatei t herorboth of t hem w i l l be for ci bl ys t er i l i zed i n C hi na.

T h e IJ d e n ied re lief. W h ile f in d in g th a t p e tit io n e rs’ tes tim o n yw a s c re d ib le an d that their subjecti v e f ea r of return ing to C h ina is g en u ine, th e IJ h eld th at pe ti ti o n ers d id n o t pro v e a n o b

jecti v elyrea so n ab le fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . In p arti cu lar, the IJ found thatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o s how thatC hi na mai nt ai ns an off i ci al pol i cyof s t er i l i zi ng ci t i zens w ho r etur n w i t h “outof pl an” c hi l dr en, and theyfai l ed t o s how ei t herthatthey w oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on orthatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i ng i ndi vi dual s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t hem. T he I J al s o deni ed w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ) r e lie f.

Pet i t i oner s appea l ed t o the B I A and cha l l enged the I J ’ s fi ndi ng r egar di ng th e ir f a ilu re to sh o w a n o b

jec tiv e f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . P e tit io n e rs f iled a b rie f

w ith t he B I A , and theyat t ache d t o t he br i ef s ever al “addi t i onal document s , ” w hi ch theyas kedPet i t i oner s s t at ed i n t hei rbr i ef thattheyw er e s ubm i t t i ng the addi t i onal document s as 1 “rebut t al t o the m ostrecentS t at e D epart m ent R epo rt . ” A . R . at26 , 43 . P et i t i on ers , how ever , neveri dent i fi ed thi s “mostr ece ntSt at e D epart m entR epor t ” norexpl ai ned how th e ir a d d iti o n a l d o c u m e n ts s e rv e d to “ re b u t” th a t u n id e n tifie d re p o rt. I n Shao, t he Second Ci r cui tC our tof A ppeal s deni ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed by 2 t he al i en i n M at t erof J - W - S- . A m ong ot herthi ngs , the courtof appe al s hel d t hat 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 e d t h e BI A’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a tth e a l i e n , th e f a t h e ro f two s ons bor n i n t he U ni t ed St at es , had fa i l ed t o s how a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t ythathe fa ced for ced s t er i l i zat i on upon r etur n t o C hi na. See Shao, 546 F. 3d at162- 66. 3 t he B I A t o “r evi ew [as ] backgr ound m at er i al w hi ch overw hel m i ngl yes t abl i s hes the o b je c tiv e p ro n g .” A .R . a t 4 0 . 1 T he B I A di s m i s s ed pet i t i oner s ’ appea l . I tnot ed that , i n fi ndi ng that pet i t i oner s had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, the I J r el i ed on M at t erof J - W - S- , 24 I & N D ec. 185 ( B I A 2007) , w her e the B I A had hel d t hatthe evi dence di d nots how t hatt he C hi nes e governm enthas a nat i onal pol i cyof r equi r i ng for ced s t er i l i zat i on of a pa r entw ho r eturns w i th chi l dr en born i n t he U ni t ed St at es . T he BI A r e j e c t e d p e t i t i o n e r s ’ a r g u me n tt h a tM a t t e ro f J - W - S - wa s wr o n g l yd e c i d e d . S e e A. R. a t 4 (c iti n g S h a o v . M u k a se y , 5 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 8 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 )). T h e B IA a lso a g re e d w ith 2 t he I J t hatpet i t i oner s ’ evi dence fai l s t o pr ovi de an obj ect i ve bas i s forconcl udi ng thatt hey w i l l be s t er i l i zed. T he B I A obs erved, as i tdi d i n M att erof J - W - S- , thati f a r eturni ng n a tio n a l is p e n a lize d a t all, h e o r sh e w ill b e sa n c tio n e d th ro u g h f in e s o r o th e r e c o n o m ic penal t i es , w hi ch do notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on ort or tur e. Fi nal l y , the B I A found no bas i s t o r emand t he mat t erforcons i der at i on of the addi t i onal document s s ubm i t t ed on a p p e a l, no tin g th a t p e tit io n e rs h a d f a iled to sh o w th a t an y“ n e w ” e v id e n c e w a s p re v io u sly4

unavai l abl e orw oul d change t he out come i n t hei rcas e.

P eti ti o n ers ti m elyfil ed a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew in this C o u rtaf ter th e B IA r ei s s ued the fi nal or derof r emoval t o corr ecta def ecti n s ervi ce. W e have j ur i s di ct i on u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W h ere , as h ere , “the B IA b o th ad o p ts th e f ind ing s o f th e IJ and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es forthe I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i t yt o r evi ew the d ec isi o n s o f b o th the IJ an d the B IA . ” C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2004) . “W e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs , i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs of per s ecut i on and fe arof per s ecut i on, undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. ” Sandi e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 562 F. 3d 246, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . “U ndert hi s defe r ent i al s t andar d, fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve 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 . ” I d. (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).

P eti ti o n ers c o n tend that theyp rov ed a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on t hr ough cr edi bl e t es t i m onyand the document s theypr es ent ed t o t he I J . T hey ar gue thatt he evi dence s how s t hatt hei rchi l dr en w i l l r eturn w i t h t hem t o C hi na, thatt he chi l dr en w i l l be cons i der ed C hi nes e ci t i zens , and thatthei rfea rof for ced s t er i l i zat i on for havi ng vi ol at ed the one- chi l d pol i cyi s w el l - founded.

“To est abl i s h t he exi s t ence of a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, an a p p lica n t m u st p ro v e a n o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le p o ss ib ili tyo f sta tu to rilyc o g n iza b le per s ecut i on, and thatt he appl i cant ’ s pr ofes s ed fe ari s genui ne. ” Sandi e, 562 F. 3d at 250- 251 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, the I J and the B I A acc ept ed thatR es pondentar gues t hatpet i t i oner s fai l ed bef or e the B I A t o exhaus tthe cl ai m that 3 theyw o u ld b e sin g led o u t fo r pe rsec u ti o n in C h ina, an d that the o n lyissue p rop erlyb ef o re t hi s C our ti s pet i t i oner s ’ pat t ern orpr act i ce a r gum ent . See R es pondent ’ s B r . at14. T he B IA c lea rlyh e ld , h o w e v e r, th a t th e e v id e n c e f a ils to su p p o rt any bas i s forfi ndi ng an o b jec tiv e f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n – a f

in d in g th a t in c lu d e d a d o p tio n o f th e IJ’ s d e c isio n to r ej ectt he s i ngl i ng outar gum ent . See A . R . at4 ( ci t i ng I J ’ s O p. at15- 17) . T hus , even assu m ing p eti ti o n ers f

ail ed to m ak e a sing li n g o u t argu m en t i n their brief , the B IA addr es s ed thati s s ue s ua s pont e, and, acc or di ngl y , w e r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew i t . See L in v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 3 -24 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 5 p e tit io n e rs h a v e a g e n u in e su b jec tiv e f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n , an d th u s th e so le q u e stio n is w hethert he evi dence t heypr es ent ed compel s the conc l us i on thattheyal s o pr oved the r equi s i t e obj ect i ve bas i s fort hatfea r . Pet i t i oner s coul d m eetthei rbur den of s how i ng an obj ect i ve fe arbypr ovi ng ei t hert hattheyw oul d be i ndi vi dual l ys i ngl ed outfor per s ecut i on, ort hatt her e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce i n C hi na of pe r s ecut i ng s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed in d iv id u a ls . S e e W o n g v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).

A s m ent i oned, t he I J found thatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o pr ove ei t herbas i s for an obj ect i ve fe ar . T he B I A agr eed, obs ervi ng that“the document s s ubm i t t ed by [pet i t i oner s ] do notpr ovi de an obj ect i ve bas i s forconcl udi ng that[they ] w i l l be s t er i l i zed upon r etur n t o C hi na. ” A . R . at4. I n t hei rbr i ef be for e thi s C our t , pet i t i oner s fai l t o poi nt 3 t o anys peci fi c evi dence i n t he vol um i nous r ecor d befor e the I J thatw oul d com pel a fi ndi ng t hatt hei rfea rof for ced s t er i l i zat i on i s obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e, ei t herbeca us e they w oul d be s i ngl ed outorbeca us e of a patt ern orpr act i ce. T he fe w document s that pet i t i oner s do hi ghl i ghti n t hei rbr i ef be for e thi s C our tar e i ns uffi ci ent . Forexampl e, p eti ti o n ers c it e the fo ll o w ing sen tenc e f rom test im o n yg iven b yT . K u m ar in 2 0 0 4 b ef o reI n M at t erof J - W - S- , t he B I A addr es s ed ec onom i c s anct i ons i n Fuj i an Pr ovi nce a nd 4 f o u n d th a t, at m o st, a n a lien w o u ld f a c e a “ m o d e ra te e c o n o m ic im p a c t” n o t am o u n tin g to per s ecut i on. 24 I . & N . D ec. at191. 6 t he H ous e C om m i t t ee on I nt ernat i onal R el at i ons : “[c ] oupl es w ho have a chi l d ‘ outof p lan ’ a re su b

jec t to sa n c tio n s, in c lu d in g h e a v yf in e s.” A .R . at 2 1 2 1 . T h is s tate m e n t, how ever , i s noti ncons i s t entw i t h t he B I A ’ s hol di ng i n M att erof J - W - S- , upon w hi ch the B I A expr es s l yr el i ed her e, and pet i t i oner s ci t e no evi dence of r ecor d t hatw oul d r equi r e a fi ndi ng t hatt he fi nes i m pos ed r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on ort or tur e. Pet i t i oner s s eem 4 t o s ugges tt hatt hei rt es t i m onyal one w as enough t o es t abl i s h a fe arof futur e per s ecut i on, s ee Pet i t i oner s ’ B r . at7- 8, butcl ear l ythei rt es t i m ony , even w hen vi ew ed i n connec t i on w i t h t he document aryevi dence , does notcompel the conc l us i on thattheypos s es s an o b jec tive ly r eas onabl e fe ar . I n s hor t , aft era ca r eful r evi ew of the evi dence that pet i t i oner s pr es ent ed t o t he I J , w e hol d t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the fi ndi ng t hat t heyl ack a n obj ect i ve bas i s fort hei rfea rof futur e per s ecut i on.

Pet i t i oner s nextcont end thatthe B I A err ed byfai l i ng t o r emand t he mat t er fort he I J t o cons i dert he “a ddi t i onal backgr ound” document s thattheys ubm i t t ed on a p p e a l. T h is c o n ten tio n is w ith o u t m e rit. A s re sp o n d e n t n o tes , p e tit io n e rs e lec ted to subm i tnu m erous do cum ents on t heirapp eal t o the B IA w i t ho ut everdis cussi ng tho se document s i n t hei rappea l br i ef orexpl ai ni ng w hythe document s qual i fi ed as new or m at eri al evidence. P et i t i on ers no w sugg estthat “[t ]he B IA err ed w hen i tfai l ed to add res s t he mot i on t o r emand, ” Pet i t i oner s ’ B r . at10, butpet i t i oner s , i n fac t , neverfi l ed aPet i t i oner s do notar gue the C A T cl ai m befor e thi s C our t , and thus w e dee m that 5 c la im w a iv e d a n d d o n o t a d d re s s it. 7 “mot i on t o r emand” w i t h t he B I A , and i ns t ead theym er el yas ked the B I A i t s el f t o r evi ew the a d d it ion al do cu m en ts as “b ac k g rou n d m aterial . ” A . R . at 40 . M o reo v er, th e re co rd ampl ys uppor t s the B I A ’ s deci s i on nott o r emand t he mat t erforcons i der at i on of p e tit io n e rs’ a d d iti o n a l d o c u m e n ts. A s th e B IA c o rre c tlyn o ted , p e tit io n e rs f a iled to es t abl i s h t hatt he evi dence w as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e orcoul d al t erthe out come.

B eca us e w i t hhol di ng of r emoval r equi r es a hi ghers how i ng than the s t andar d foras y l um , pet i t i oner s ’ i nabi l i t yt o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um bas ed on a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on nece s s ar i l yunderm i nes thei rel i gi bi l i t yfor wi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l . S e e Ch e n v . As h c r o f t , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ An a lien w h o f

a ils to e sta b lish th a t h e o r sh e h a s a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n , so a s to be el i gi bl e fora gr antof as y l um , nece s s ar i l yw i l l fai l t o es t abl i s h t he r i ghtt o w i t hhol di ng o f re m o v al. ”). 5

F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.