FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCTOB ER 26, 2011
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 1- 10 88 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -9 30 -9 59

MEI XIANG CHEN,

Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us

U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL,

Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Deci si on of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1)

Befo re EDMONDSON, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Mei Xian g Ch en se ek s rev ie w of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s’s (“ BIA”)

fin al or de r affi rm in g th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) de ni al of he r a p p li cat io n fo ra s yl u m un de r th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a),

wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al u n d e r 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 ), an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

un de r th e Uni te d Nati on s Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e an d Oth er Cru el
, In hu m an , or

Deg r a di ng Treat m en t or Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). On ap pe al
,

Ch en arg ue s th at th e BIA erre d in de nyin g he r as y lu m rel ie f be cau se sh e es ta bl is he d

a well -fo un de d fear th at sh e wou ld be fo rci bl y st eri li zed
, pu ni sh ed
, or ha ra ss ed fo r

vi ol at in g Ch in a’s on e-ch il d po li cy , an d be cau se th e BIA fai le d to co ns id er al l of th e

ev id en ce o n t he reco rd . After c aref ul rev ie w, we den y

th e p et it io n.

W e rev ie w on ly th e BIA’s de ci si on , ex cep t to th e ex te nt th at it ex pr es sl y ad op ts

th e IJ ’s op in io n or reas on in g. Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 25 7 F.3 d 12 62
, 12 84 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 01 ). Bec au se th e BIA is su ed it s own de ci si on wit ho ut ex pr es sl y ad op ti ng po rti on s

of th e IJ ’s op in io n, we wi ll on ly revi ew th e BIA’s d eci si on

.

The BIA m

us t co ns id er al l ev id en ce in tro du ced by th e ap pl ic an t. Tan v. U.S.

Att ’y Gen
., 44 6 F.3 d 13 69
, 13 74 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). Howev er, th e BIA is no t req ui red

to sp eci fic al ly ad dr es s each pi ece of ev id en ce if th e B I A h a s gi ve n reas on ed

co ns id erat io n to th e pe t i t i o n a n d made ad eq ua te fin di ng s. Id

. The BIA m us t

“ co ns id er the is su es rai se d and an no un ce i ts de ci si on in ter m s s uf fic ie nt to en ab le a

rev ie win g co ur t to pe rcei ve th at it ha s he ard an d th ou gh t an d no t m erel y reac te d.” Id

.

2(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W e m ay no t weig h ev id en ce th at was no t pr ev io us ly co ns id ered

be lo w. Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3d at 1 27 8.

W e rev ie w ad m in is tra ti ve fact ua l d e t e r m in at io ns reg ard in g el ig ib il it y fo r

as y lu m unde r the hig hly de fere nt ia l su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e st an da rd an d m us t affi rm th e

BIA’s de ci si on if it is su pp or te d by reas on ab le
, su bs ta nt ia l, an d pr ob at iv e ev id en ce.

Id

. at 1 2 8 3- 84

. W e wil l rev ers e a fin di ng of fact m ad e by th e BIA on ly whe re th e

reco rd co m

pe ls rev ers al
, no t w h e r e it m erel y su pp or ts a co nt rary co nc lu si on

.

Ade fem i v. Ash cro ft, 38 6 F.3 d 10 22
, 10 27 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). Acco rd in gl y ,

Ch en m us t sh ow th at th e ev id en ce sh e pr es en te d was su ch th at a reas on ab le fact fin de r

wou ld ha ve to co nc lu de th at th e req ui si te li ke li ho od of pe rs ecu ti on ex is te d. I.N.S. v.

Eli as -Zaca ria s, 5 02 U.S. 47 8, 4 81 (19 92 ).

An al ie n who is pr es en t in th e Uni te d St at es m ay ap pl y fo r as y lu m , whi ch th e

Att or ne y Gen eral ha s d is cret io n t o g ran t if the ali en m eet s th e INA’s de fin it io n of a

“ refu ge e.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A). A “ refu ge e” i s d efi ne d a s:

[A]ny pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of s uc h p ers on ’s nat io na li ty .

. . who is un ab le or un wil li ng to r e t u r n t o

. . . th at co un try be cau se of
pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f race , rel igion, na tio na lit

y , m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, or po li ti cal
op in io n.

38 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). “ The as y lu m ap pl ic a n t c a r r i es th e bu rd en of pr ov in g

st at ut or y ‘refug ee’ st at us an d th ereb y es ta bl is hi ng as y lu m el ig ib il it y .” Sep ul ve da v.

U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 01 F.3d 12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

To es ta bl is h as y lu m el ig ib i l i t y, an al ie n m us t es ta bl is h pa st pe rs ecu ti on or a

well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of a p r o t e c t e d gr ou nd

. Id .; 8

C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a), (b ). “ [P]erse cu ti on is an ex tre m e co nc ep t, req ui rin g m or e th an

a few is ol at ed in ci de nt s of ve rb al ha ras sm en t or in ti m id at io n.” Sep ul ve da
, 40 1 F.3 d

at 12 31 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. To sh ow a well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on , an al ie n

“ m us t de m on st rat e t h a t h i s or he r fear of pe rs ecu ti on is su bjec ti ve ly ge nu in e an d

ob je c t i v e l y reas on ab le .” Al Najjar, 25 7 F.3 d at 12 89

. The ap pl ic an t m us t pr es en t

“ sp eci fic
, de ta il ed fact s sh owi ng a go od reas on to fear th at he or sh e wil l be si ng le d

ou t fo r pe rs ecu ti on ” on acco un t of a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. Id

. a t 12 87 (q uo ta ti on an d

em ph as is om it te d)

. Afte r es ta bl is hi ng a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on , th e al ie n

m us t es ta bl is h th at th e pe rs ecu ti on can no t be av oi de d by rel oc at in g wit hi n th e su bjec t

co un try. Sepu lv ed a, 40 1 F .3d at 1 23 1; 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .13 (b )(2 )(i i).

“ A pe rs on who

. . . gi ve s bi rth to two or m or e ch il dr en in Ch in a m ay qu al ify as

a r e f u g e e if

. . . sh e es ta bl is he s th at th e bi rth s are a vi ol at io n of fam il y pl an ni n g

po li ci es th at wou ld be pu ni sh ed by loc al off ic ia ls in a way

th at wou ld gi ve ris e to a

w e l l

- f o u n de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on .” In re J- H-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 19 6, 19 6 (BIA

42 0 0 7 )

. Howev er, ab se nt a pa tt ern of pe rs ecu ti on ti ed to th e ap pl ic an t pe rs on al l y,

ha rm to an ap pl ic an t’s fam il y m em be rs do es no t es ta bl is h a ris k of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

to th e ap pl ic an t h ers el f. In r e A-K-, 2 4 I. & N. Dec. 27 5, 2 78 (BIA 2 00 7)

.

Fi rs t, su bs ta nt ia l e v i d e n ce su pp or ts th e BIA’s co nc lu si on th at Ch en fai le d to

de m on st rat e el ig ib il it y fo r a s yl u m d u e to he r fai lu re to es ta bl is h ei th er pa st

pe r s e c u t io n or a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

. Ch en ’s on ly ev id en ce of

pa st pe rs ecu ti on was he r te st im on y reg ard in g he r m ot he r’s an d si st er’s ex pe rie nc es

aft er vi ol at in g famil y -p la nn in g po li ci es in Ch in a, an d a do cu m en t an d le tt er fro m

Ch en ’s m ot he r th at in di cat ed th at Ch en ’s m ot he r ha d be en st eri li zed an d fin ed 5,0 00

RMB aft er gi vi ng bi rth to Ch en

. Howev er, Ch en ha s waiv ed an y ch al le ng e to th e IJ ’s

de te rm in at io n t h a t he r te st im on y was no t cred ib le
, an d, as th e BIA no te d, th e

do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce of Ch en ’s m ot he r’s st eri li zat io n was in co ns is te nt wit h Ch en ’s

te st im on y reg ard in g th e da te of he r m ot he r’s st eri li zat io n an d th e ge nd e r o f he r

m ot he r’s ot he r ch il dr en

. In ad di ti on , th e al le ge d ha rm to Ch en ’s fam il y m em be rs was

no t su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a ris k of fut ur e p ers ecu ti on to Ch en he rs el f be cau se Ch en

di d n ot all eg e an y

pa tt ern of p ers ecu ti on ti ed to he rs el f pe rs on al ly. See In re A-K-,

24 I. & N. Dec. at 2 78

.

5Mo reo ve r, whi le Ch en as se rte d th a t sh e fear ed eco no m ic co ns eq ue nc es fo r

vi ol at in g fam il y -p la nn in g po li ci es , sh e di d no t pr ov id e ev id en ce to es ta bl is h th at su ch

co ns eq ue nc es wou ld am ou nt to pe rs ecu ti on , par ti cu la rly in l ig ht of t he fact th at sh e

pr ev io us ly was ab le to pa y $6 0,0 00 in or de r to sm ug gl e he rs el f ou t of Ch in a. Fu rth er,

th e Co un try Co nd it io ns Pro fil e, as well as ot he r do cu m en ta ry ev id e n c e fro m th e

Fu jian Pro vi nc e Po pu la ti on an d Fam il y Pl an ni ng Co m m is si on , in di cat ed th at fo rced

st eri li zat io n a n d b i r th co nt ro l was no lo ng er pr act ic ed in Fu jian pr ov in ce, an d th at

fo rei gn -b or n ch il dr en of Ch in e s e na ti on al s wou ld no t be co un te d whe n en fo rci ng

fam il y -p la nn in g po li ci es

. Acco rd in gl y , Ch en ha s no t sh own th a t th e ev id en ce sh e

pr es en te d was su ch th at a reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ld ha ve to c o n c lu de th at th e

req ui si te li ke li ho od of p ers ecu ti on ex is te d. Se e Eli as -Zaca ria s, 5 02 U.S. at 4 81

.

Nor ha s Ch en sh own th at th e BIA fai le d to co ns i d er reco rd ev id en ce in

affi rm in g th e IJ ’s de ni al of rel ie f. As an in it ia l m at te r, we m ay no t co ns id er th e art ic le

Ch en ci te s fro m “ CNSNEW S.co m ” be cau se th at art ic le was no t pr ev io us ly pr es en te d

an d co ns id ered be lo w. Al Najjar, 25 7 F.3 d at 12 78

. And
, whi le Ch en no te s th at th e

IJ ha d in di cat ed th at th e go ve rn m en t wou ld ne ed to up da te th e 20 07 Co un try Rep or t,

sh e ne gl ect s to m en ti on th at th e go ve rn m en t di d, i n f a c t , su bm it an up da te d rep or t,

an d sh e ha s no t pr ov id ed an y m or e rece nt co nt rad ic to ry ev id en ce of fam il y -p la nn in g

po li ci es in Fu

jian pr ov in ce. As th e go ve rn m en t co rrec tl y no te s, th e Ch ua ns hi Vil la ge

6reg ul at io ns wou ld no t ap pl y to Ch en be cau se sh e is fro m Fu zh ou Cit y . Fin al ly, th e

BIA was no t req ui red to sp eci fic al ly ad dr es s e a c h p ie ce of ev id en ce th at Ch en

p r e s e nt ed
, an d it ci te d reco rd ev id en ce an d m ad e ad eq ua te fin di ng s in co nc lu d i n g

th at Ch en ha d fai le d to es ta bl is h a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t

of a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. See Tan , 4 46 F.3 d at 13 74

. As a r e su lt , t he reco rd do es no t

su pp or t Ch en ’s co nt e n t i o n t h at th e BIA fai le d to co ns id er reco rd ev id en ce in

affi rm in g t he IJ’s d en ia l o f rel ie f. 1

PETI TI ON DENI ED.

I n addition, Chen has waive d any challeng e to the B I A’s denia l of withholding of 1

remova l or CAT relief

by failing to raise the issue in he r opening brief. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F .3d 1247, 1257 n.6 (11th Cir. 2006). Althoug h the B I A sua sponte a ddresse d the issue, Chen has also wa ived any challeng e to the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination by

failing to exhaust her administrative re medies by raising such a c halleng e bef ore the BI A. See Amay a-A rtunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006).

7