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 Thir d C ir c uit 1-14-2008 

# Y ong v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-5051

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Y on g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1750. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1750NOT 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- 5051

___________ YUE XI ANG YO NG, a/ k/ a Y ue X i ang Y uan, 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 an O r derof t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 78- 015- 950) I m m i gr at i on J udge: R os al i nd M al l oy

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

J anuary2, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary14, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Y ue X i ang Y ong pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m i ng t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . For t heY ong i ni t i al l yfi l ed herpet i t i on forr evi ew i n t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for 1 t h e S e c o n d Ci r c u i t , wh i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e p e t i t i o n t o t h i s Co u r t . S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 2 ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 3 1 . 2 r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l denyherpet i t i on. Y ong, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y2002 w i t houtpr operdocument at i on. She w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs and appl i ed for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , vol unt arydepartur e, and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. H erpet i t i on w as bas ed on the cl ai m t hats he had be en for ced t o have a n ab o rt ion in Ju ly1 9 9 4 , af ter be co m ing p reg n an t w ith a se co n d ch il d in v iolati o n o f C h ina’s f a m i l y p l a n n i n g p o l i c y. T he I J deni ed r el i ef, concl udi ng, aft era hea r i ng, t hatY ong’ s t es t i m onyw as “not b e l i e v a b l e o rc o n s i s t e n to rs u f f i c i e n t l yd e t a i l e d i n l i g h to f g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e h o me countr yt o pr ovi de a pl aus i bl e and c oher entacc ountof t he bas i s fort he al l eged f ear . ” Y ong appea l ed t o t he B I A , w hi ch di s m i s s ed the appe al , hol di ng t hati tdi d notfi nd t he IJ’ s e v a lu a tio n o f

h e r te stim o n yto b e c lea rlye rro n e o u s. Y o n g , p ro c e e d in g p ro se , ti m e ly f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 1 W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew under8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) . T o be gr ant ed as y l um as a r efuge e, an appl i cantm us tes t abl i s h t hats he i s unabl e t o r etur n t o her hom el and “be caus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) . T he I J deni ed r el i ef be caus e s he found thatY ong w as not3

cr edi bl e. T hatdet er m i nat i on i s a fa ctual fi ndi ng s ubj ectt o r evi ew undert he s ubs t ant i al evidence st and ard. In ot her w ords, “[w ]e w i l l defe r t o an d u ph old t he IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i ons i f t heyar e ‘ s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e, ’ buts uch fi ndi ngs m us tbe bas ed on i ncons i s t enci es and i m pr obabi l i t i es t hat‘ go t o t he hea r tof t he as y l um cl ai m . ’ ” C hen v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 212, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 4 8 1 (19 9 2 )). A s r ecount ed byt he I J , Y ong’ s t es t i m onyas t o fac t s m at er i al t o heras y l um appl i cat i on change d overt i m e. I n heras y l um aff i davi tand dur i ng hercr edi bl e fe ar i nt er vi ew , s he cl ai m ed thats he w as fourm ont hs pr egnanti n M ar ch 1994, w hen her pr egnanc yw as di s cover ed dur i ng a r equi r ed che ck- up. B ycontr as t , dur i ng t he as y l um hear i ng, s he t es t i fi ed thats he w as one mont h pr egnantatt hatt i m e. O n di r ect exami nat i on, Y ong t es t i fi ed thats he w as i nfor m ed on M ar ch 13, 1994, t he dayof her chec k- up, t hats he s houl d r epor tt hataft ernoon foran abort i on. She t es t i fi ed that , upon r ece i ptof t hatnot i ce, s he bec ame w or r i ed s o s he r an aw ayt o herm ot her ’ s vi l l age, and t hatfourm ont hs l at er , on J ul y8, 1994, offi ci al s arr i ved att he home of herm ot her - i n- l aw t o t ake he rfort he abort i on. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, Y ong t es t i fi ed thataft ergoi ng t o her chec k- up i n M ar ch, s he r ece i ved a not i ce i n M ayi nfor m i ng hert hats he had t o under go an abor t i on, w hi ch w as t hen per for m ed i n J ul y . W hi l e Y ong t w i ce t es t i fi ed thats he r ece i ved t he fi r s tnot i ce r equi r i ng hert o go fora che ck- up i n M ar ch 1994, t he not i ce w hi ch s he4

i dent i fi ed and w hi ch w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence w as dat ed A pr i l 13, 1994, and s t at ed t hat s he w as t o r epor tfora medi cal exami nat i on byA pr i l 20, 1994. A ddi t i onal l y , t he abort i on not i ce thats he s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof hercl ai m w as dat ed M ay26, 1994, and s t at es t hat s h e w a s to re p o rt to a n a b o rt io n c lin ic w ith in te n d a y s o f re c e iv in g th e n o tic e . T he I J al s o expl ai ned thatw hi l e Y ong cl ai m ed dur i ng hercr edi bl e fe ari nt er vi ew t hats he had tw o chi l dr en, s he t es t i fi ed att he as y l um hear i ng t hats he had onl yone. Y ong cl ai m ed thats he had t ol d t he I m m i gr at i on O ffi cer s att he ai rpor tt hats he had tw o chi l dr en beca us e s he w as s car ed thatt heyw oul d s end herback t o C hi na i f s he r evea l ed thats he onl yhad one c hi l d, and bec aus e herhus band had r epor t ed thathe had tw o chi l dr en dur i ng h is a sy lu m h e a rin g a n d sh e w a n ted th e ir sto rie s to b e c o n sis ten t. T h e IJ a lso n o ted th a t in hercr edi bl e fe ari nt er vi ew Y ong t es t i fi ed thats he had be en arr es t ed and de t ai ned and that herhous e had be en t or n dow n as puni s hm entand herhus band had be en i nj ur ed i n t he p ro c e s s . H o w e v e r, a t th e a s y lu m h e a ri n g , Y o n g o f f e re d n o s u c h te s tim o n y . W hen ques t i oned aboutt he bas i s forhercl ai m of per s ecut i on, Y ong t es t i fi ed t hat s he fe ar ed thats he w oul d be arr es t ed upon herr etur n t o C hi na t o pr eventherfr om havi ng anym or e chi l dr en. T he I J concl uded thatt her e w as no bas i s i n t he r ecor d forherbel i ef, par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof t he fa ctt hatt her e w as no i ndi cat i on t hatherhus band had s uffe r ed su ch co n seq u en ce s u p o n h is r eturn to C h ina, no r did C h ina’s f am il yp lann ing p o li cyb ar a w o m a n in Y o n g ’s c ir c u m s ta n c e s f ro m h a v in g a n o th e r c h ild . B a s e d o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g , t h e I J h e l d t h a tY o n g w a s n o tc r e d i b l e a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y,5

th a t sh e h a d f

a iled to e sta b lish th a t sh e h a d su f f e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n o r w a s lik e lyto s uffe rfutur e per s ecut i on upon r etur n t o C hi na on ac countof anyof t he enumer at ed gr ounds . See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) . For t he s ame r eas ons , t he I J concl uded thatY ong h ad fa il ed to es tablish e li g ibil ityfo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, see 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 ), and thats he had notdemonst r at ed a l i kel i hood of t or tur e i f r emoved t o C hi na. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . T he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng w as bas ed on s peci fi c r eas ons s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d, and Y ong has nots how n t hatt he r ecor d compel s a fi ndi ng t hat sh e w as c red ible an d en ti tl ed to reli ef. S ee Z h en g v . G o n za les, 4 1 7 F . 3 d 3 7 9 , 3 8 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.